Overview.ppt Overview-An Overview of Visual Basic.NET An Overview of Visual Basic.NET.
235Program & An overview of HSI’s
Transcript of 235Program & An overview of HSI’s
Many thanks to those who contributed
to this policy paper:
Evan Quartermain
Jessica Morris
Nari Sahukar
Dr Judy Lambert AM
Paul Sattler OAM
Glen Klatovsky
Stacey Ella
Alexia Wellbelove
Laura Muir
Alistair Graham and Nigel Brothers
Thanks also to the following for their work for HSI
and helping protect the world’s biological diversity:
Dr Keith Suter
Georgie Stewart
Nicola Beynon
Rebecca Keeble
Averil Bones
Rod Holesgrove
Michael Bland
Gemma Hunneyball
Bill Foster
Julie Hughes
Dr Martin Denny
Tim Childs
Danielle Annese
Sara Russell
Melanie Dulfer-Hyams
Jessica Harwood
Sally Stephens and Andreas Glanznig
Special BulletinHumane Society InternationalAustraliaWildlife Land Trust Australia
PO Box 439, Avalon NSW 2107 Australia
Editor M. Kennedy (2016)
ISBN: 978-0-9944687-4-1
Printed on recycled paper
Artwork by LPN
2
Cover image: Shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta)
Back cover: Mahogany glider, by Daryl Dickson and taken on WLT sanctuary Mungarru Lodge Sanctuary (Queensland)
Page 9: Grey-headed flying-fox, by Nick Edards
Page 15: Sparky the orphaned eastern quoll, by Tonia Cochranand taken on WLT sanctuary Inala (Tasmania)
of our wildlife and wild places remains
in the balance
The future
3
The central bearded dragon (Pogona vitticeps)is still safe but 60 of his reptilian friends arelisted under the EPBC Act.
Threatened speciesconservation in Australia
HSI’s Threatened Species Program
HSI Nominated Species Listings Jessica Morris
Conserving EPBC Act Listed Species through de facto Critical Habitat Protection Evan Quartermain and Laura Muir
Wildlife Land Trust—Protecting Listed Species Evan Quartermain
Threatened Species and Biodiversity Hotspots Laura Muir
Threatened Species Protection —Policy and Program Directions for Australia
Introduction
EPBC Act Amendments—Protecting the National Environment:Priority EPBC Act Amendments Nari Sahukar
EPBC Act Amendments—Protecting the National Environment:Improving Access to Justice, Community Engagement and Public Confidence Nari Sahukar
‘Red Light Protection’ for the Most Threatened Habitats Evan Quartermain
National Biodiversity Strategy Report Card and Revised Goals Dr Judy Lambert AM
Bioregional Conservation Strategies and National Priorities Paul Sattler OAM
Next Generation Environment Laws Glen Klatovsky
4
8 40
an overview and policy suggestions
&
Marine Species Program ReviewAlexia Wellbelove, Editor
Protecting Cetaceans
$1m fine for whaling company: Why is it so significant? Stacey Ella
Fisheries and Fisheries Bycatch: Policy and Management
Protecting Seabirds
Shark Conservation
Of Seals, Sea lions, Dolphins, Marine Turtles and Dugongs
Marine Recommendations
Threatened Species and Human ConflictEvan Quartermain, Editor
Flying-foxes and Other Bats
Conservation of the Dingo
Wildlife Trade
Appendix I: List of Threatened Plants Found on HSI Nominatedand EPBC Act Listed TECs
Appendix II: Contributor Biographies
5
100 132
This is the second in a series of overview publications examining HSI’s biodiversity conservation programs over the last two decades.
The first focussed on our efforts to protect Australia’s threatened ecosystems, while this document conveys
the breadth of our campaigns to directly protect Australia’s threatened species.
20+ years of action
In 1982, as Directors of The Fund for Animals Ltd Australia
(FFA), we played a key NGO-role in the passage of the
Commonwealth’s Wildlife Protection (Regulations of Import
and Export) Act, which comprehensively implemented
Australia’s obligations under CITES (Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora).
In a 1984 submission to the Senate Select Committee
of Inquiry into Animal Welfare in Australia, we first called
for the enactment of a Federal Endangered Species Act
to protect the habitats of endangered species, and in 1986,
under the banner of EcoFund Australia, published
A ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Strategy for Australia—
Policies for the Future (including model legislation). These
actions and others were the seeds of a long-term effort
on behalf of Australia’s imperilled wildlife, with the 1986
strategy leading to a Prime Ministerial election promise
in 1987, to establish Australia’s first National Endangered
Species Program and the passage of the Commonwealth’s
Endangered Species Protection Act in 1992.
In the 1980s, FFA also helped trigger negotiations for
development of the Convention on Biological Diversity;
gained a commitment from the Commonwealth to pursue
such a treaty; and a pledge from the NSW Government
to enact specific threatened species legislation.
Establishing Humane Society International (HSI) in
Australia in 1994, it was our intent as directors to maintain
the impetus for securing effective threatened species
programs and laws in Australia. This publication reflects
on HSI actions in the intervening 22 year period. More
importantly however, it also proposes 235 policies and
actions essential in achieving the nation’s long-term
wildlife and habitat protection goals.
HSI continues to fight for strong Commonwealth
environmental management and responsibility, and to
significantly improve national conservation policy and law.
The future of Australia’s wildlife and wild places remains
in the balance.
Michael Kennedy
Founding Directors:Humane Society International (Australia)Wildlife Land Trust (Australia) Verna Simpson
7
By its very nature as an advocacy organisation, Humane Society
International focusses on what it can achieve through the promotion of
adequate public policy and law at state, national and international levels.
The last 22 years has therefore seen us at the sharp end of campaigns to
see the introduction of appropriate threatened species and biodiversity
laws and, more latterly, spending inordinate amounts of time in their
defence. We do not foresee this role changing in the near future.
We have been privileged to have been at the forefront of campaigns to
see the introduction of the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act); subsequent EPBC Act
wildlife trade amendments; the New South Wales Threatened Species
Conservation Act 1995 (TSCA); and the NSW Fisheries Management Act
1994 (threatened species provisions).
With the passage of these new laws, HSI and all NGOs concerned with
nature conservation were offered the opportunity to thoroughly test
the legislations’ potential to protect threatened species, a course of action
which HSI set out purposely to do. In the period between the establishment
of HSI in 1994 and the entering into force of the EPBC Act in 2000,
HSI also utilised the far weaker Commonwealth Endangered Species
Protection Act 1992 to the extent that the law permitted.
With the enactment of the EPBC Act, for the first time the Federal
Government was able to take responsibility for environmental impact
assessment of actions affecting World Heritage sites, Ramsar wetlands,
threatened species, Threatened Ecological Communities and migratory
species, wherever they may occur in Australia, as well as the
Commonwealth marine environment and nuclear actions. And for the
first time, it would be the Federal Environment Minister (not, for example,
a resources or transport minister) deciding whether these actions should
go ahead and what conditions should be placed on them. The EPBC
Act schedules now contain 1,794 plants and animals and 78 threatened
ecosystems, while the TSCA lists 982 and 108 respectively.
In essence, our species program has four main directions: the pursuit
of broad policy and law improvements for the sake of all of Australia’s
biological diversity; the listing of species, habitats and key threatening
processes under all available environmental law (over 200 scientific
nominations to date); direct campaigning for the protection of species
where human/wildlife conflict issues are at the fore; and species under
pressure in Australia’s vast marine territories. Our achievements in
protecting species habitats has been outlined in the 2014 HSI Special
Bulletin, Conserving Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems—An overview
of HSI’s Habitat Protection Program, with a climate change program
review and policy proposals to follow next year.
Campaigns to protect Australian wildlife have not been restricted
to domestic conservation programs, as we have also striven to seek
protection for species under a number of international treaties where
opportunities have existed, which have centred in large part on marine
species protection.
HSI staff have therefore spent large amounts of time engaged in program
activities that are essentially linked to legislative processes designed to
protect and recover species and habitats. These activities have also included
taking action in the courts when required and when it was legally and
financially possible. Using the law we have clocked up over 50 legislative
‘firsts’ for conservation. These include listing the first commercial fish
species under threatened species laws (and possibly anywhere in the
world); the first legal recognition of ‘climate change’ as a key threatening
HSI’s Threatened Species ProgramCHASING NEW AND BETTER LAWS
8
process under Federal and state law; and the first successful legal
challenge in the Federal court against a foreign company for ‘taking’
EPBC Act listed species.
We have provided advice on threatened species management to various
governments at the highest levels, including as a member of the
Commonwealth’s ‘Endangered Species Advisory Committee’ (ESAC),
the inaugural ‘State of the Environment Reporting Council’ (publishing
Australia’s very first State of the Environment Report in 1996), a range
of species and threat abatement recovery teams and as official advisers
to treaty meetings such as CITES, CMS, CBD, CCSBT and the IWC (see
page 17) where we have successfully advocated for species protections.
We have used these multiple advisory roles (47 in total) to vigorously
promote our long-term conservation agendas, with the majority of
invitations resulting from policy initiatives we helped trigger in the first
instance. See Table 3 on page 16.
The speciesTable 4 lists the 73 species that HSI has either directly nominated for
protection under Commonwealth, state or territory laws, or been
indirectly involved in protecting; either by triggering review processes
or convincing governments to nominate species for protection under
international treaties. Table 4 identifies nominations that have gained
new or extended protection for a range of species, and also indicates
where species have been subject to recovery plans or management action
statements of one kind or another, while the last column comments on
current conservation status.
A cursory glance at Table 4 will show that of the 73 species listed,
47 have Recovery Plans; 50 are subject to one or more Threat
Abatement Plans; 3 species have been de-
listed, 2 proposed for possible de-listing;
2 species have become extinct; 1 has been
rediscovered; 3 species have been found
to be more widespread but not de-listed;
8 species still await listing adjudication due to lack of scientific data
(sharks); 4 marine fish are being commercially fished although still
listed; and two species are still being persecuted by government and
public alike (flying-foxes).
What this does not show is the many occasions when governments
rejected our species nomination proposals, including for example for
the koala, southern hairy-nosed wombat, Troughton’s bat, 7 dingo
populations, the dugong, Patagonian toothfish, flesh-footed shearwater,
several shark species and many others. More often than not governments
tend to fall back on the argument that there is insufficient data to make
a determination, particularly in relation to nearly all commercially-taken
shark species. Rarely do they utilise the EPBC Act’s embedded
‘precautionary principle’. A source of ongoing frustration and
disappointment for HSI.
The table also shows where recovery programs have indicated or
recognised species critical habitats, but strong legal protection for
these places is sadly lacking. Throughout our scientific nomination
program we have attempted to identify critical habitat requirements,
while also making separate habitat protection proposals for a further
60 species, and with WWF Australia, provided governments with maps
indicating over 300 critical habitat areas in Australia for 16 threatened
marine species.
HSI has clocked up 50+ legislative‘firsts’ for conservation—buildingblocks for recovery actions
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
9
The threatsTable 1 provides a list of Key Threatening Processes (KTPs) that HSI
has nominated over time under various Commonwealth and state laws.
Table 4 indicates where an HSI nominated species is covered by one or
more listedKTPsoroneormoreoperationalThreatAbatementPlans(TAPs).
While a number of our nominations were either rejected outright by
government, failed to be added to priority assessment lists, or were not
followed up with TAPs, the mere fact of our very public nomination often
achieved the desired political effect, causing industry or governments
to respond to threatening processes they might otherwise have
continued to ignore.
Up until late 2016, HSI had successfully listed 17 KTPs under state and
Federal law, had 10 rejected, while four are currently awaiting formal
adjudication. Of the major threatening processes listed by HSI thus far,
including ‘land clearing’ and ‘climate change’, only ‘long-line fishing’
and ‘marine debris’ have been the subject of consequential national
Threat Abatement Plans.
Of these KTPs nominated over the last 20 years, we have been involved
in significant campaigns in relation to land-clearing, climate change and
marine debris; worked in cooperation with the Commonwealth and
industry to see an end to marine turtle deaths in trawlers; and been
integrally involved in Australia’s most successful Threat Abatement Plan,
mitigating the effects of long-line fishing on albatross and petrels in
Australian waters.
Legal actionsTable 2 indicates the extent to which HSI has been prepared to use the
courts under environmental law to pursue good conservation outcomes.
The passage of the EPBC Act in 1999 provided individuals and conservation
NGOs the prospect of challenging decisions of the Federal Environment
Minster affecting listed species and places, and HSI was among the very
first environment organisations to seize the legal opportunity.
The legal challenges list would have been far, far longer if we had not been
a partial victim of our own success. By 2006, a conservative Coalition
cabinet constantly lobbied by big industry, moved to amend the EPBC Act
to remove “merits appeals” from the operation of the Act—effectively
curtailing HSI’s plans for new legal actions on behalf of threatened
species and places. The draconian EPBC Act amendments did not
completely stop our court actions but certainly made life difficult
for us and other NGOs.
HSI has been involved in 25 court cases as the primary litigant or as a
financial supporter (contributing approximately $100,000 to other NGO
court costs) including two cases in Papua New Guinea—with nearly all
of our ventures into court ably directed by EDO NSW (Environmental
Defenders Office). Some of these legal actions have set important legal
precedents—see comments on page 104 by EDO Solicitor Stacey Ella
for example.
The section after Table 4 shows the extent to which HSI’s Threatened
Ecological Community (TEC) nominations program, covering nearly
5 million hectares and 27 TECs, has provided listed species and critical
habitats with additional protection. This section also highlights the role
played by HSI’s Wildlife Land Trust (WLT) network of over 400 member
sanctuaries (covering in excess of 50,000 hectares) in conserving many
listed species. Two other sections detail our marine species program
and our campaigns in relation to steadily increasing threatened
species/human conflict situations.
HSI’s nomination program covers nearly5,000,000 hectares and 27 TECs
10
with government and industry to end turtle deaths from trawlers
Worked
11
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
12
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
Table 1 • HSI ‘Key Threatening Process’ (KTP) listings under Commonwealth and state law
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (and
previously the Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act 1992)
‘Loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of
greenhouse gasses’
‘Land clearance’ (with M. Krockenberger and Prof J. Kirkpatrick)
‘Incidental catch (bycatch) of Sea Turtles during coastal otter-trawling
operations within Australian waters north of 28 degrees south’ (Threat
mitigated through mandatory use of TEDS—Turtle Exclusion Devices)
‘Incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing
operations’ (TAP implemented—very significant reduction in albatross
bycatch—zero goal)
‘Injury and fatality to vertebrate life caused by ingestion of, or
entanglement in, harmful marine debris’ (TAP completed—continues
to be implemented—low key)
New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’
‘Clearing of native vegetation’
‘Death or injury to marine species following capture in shark control
programs on ocean beaches’
‘Entanglement in or ingestion of anthropogenic debris in marine and
estuarine environments’
‘Loss of hollow bearing trees’
New South Wales Fisheries Management Act 1994
‘Human-caused climate change’
‘Current shark meshing program in NSW waters’
‘Hook and line fishing in areas important for the survival of threatened
fish species’
Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
‘Loss of terrestrial climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions
of greenhouse gases’
‘Loss of hollow-bearing trees from Victorian native forests’
‘Incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during longline fishing
operations’
‘The discharge of human-generated marine debris into Victorian marine
or estuarine waters’
HSI KTP nominations rejected under Commonwealth and state law
‘Fatal injury to marine mammals, reptiles and other large marine species
through boat strike on the Australian coast’ (rejected by Commonwealth)
‘Death or injury to marine species following capture in lethal shark
control programs on ocean beaches’ (rejected by Commonwealth)
‘Loss of hollow-bearing trees in native forests and woodlands due to
ecologicallyunsustainable forestrypractices’ (rejectedbyCommonwealth)
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
12
13
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
‘Loss of hollow-bearing trees in native forests and woodlands due to
firewood harvesting’ (rejected by Commonwealth)
‘Introduction of marine pests to the Australian environment by shipping’
(rejected by Commonwealth)
‘Clearing and degradation of lowland forest, feather palm springs,
freshwater wetlands, grassland ecosystems, littoral rainforests and other
ecosystems along the eastern seaboard (coastal lowland) bioregions of
Queensland due to sugar cane farming and expansion’ (with joint
groups) (rejected by Commonwealth)
‘1080 poison baiting used for the control of vertebrate ‘pest’ animals’
(rejected by Commonwealth and New South Wales)
‘The cascading effects of the loss or removal of the mammalian
predator, the dingo (including wild dogs and dingo cross-dog hybrids)
from Australian landscapes’ (rejected by Commonwealth)
‘Recreational game fishing—competition game fishing especially for
sharks, tuna and marlins’ (rejected by Commonwealth)
‘Overfishing in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery
(SESSF)’ (withdrawn by HSI due to success of legal action)
HSI recently resubmitted/awaiting
adjudication KTP nominations
‘Death or injury to marine species following
a capture in the lethal shark control programs
on ocean beaches’ (under EPBC Act)
‘Alteration to the natural flow regimes of watercourses and their
floodplains and wetlands’ (under EPBC Act)
‘The cascading effects of the loss or removal of dingoes from Australian
landscapes’ (under EPBC Act)
‘Recreational fishing which results in the capture of top order predators
such as sharks, tuna and marlin including competition game fishing,
offshore fishing, line fishing and other fishing methods’ (under EPBC Act)
Ensuring ‘land clearing’ recognisedas a Key Threatening Process in law
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
13
Table 2 • HSI legal challenges and financial support for legal actions Primarily under the provisions of the EPBC Act
14
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
Federal Court application seeking permission under Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to mount
case against a foreign company (Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha) for killing
listed minke, humpback and fin whales in Australian Antarctic waters.
Successful appeal under the EPBC Act to Full Bench of the Australian
Federal Court, appealing an earlier Federal Court decision not to grant
HSI permission to challenge Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha under the EPBC Act.
Successfully challenging Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha under the EPBC Act in
the Federal Court for taking listed whales in Australia’s Whale Sanctuary
in Antarctica. Granted an injunction to restrain.
Successful challenge in the Federal Court under the EPBC Act for
Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha’s contempt of court (against the 2008 Federal
injunction) in continuing to kill whales in Australia’s Antarctic waters,
triggering a $1 million fine.
Challenging in the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal,
the Federal Environment Minister’s approval of an export program for
the endangered southern bluefin tuna (under the EPBC Act).
Successfully challenging the Commonwealth in relation to Australia’s
largest commercial fishery (Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark
Fishery) in the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and
successfully negotiating a range of improved species management
conditions (under the EPBC Act). Relating to orange roughy, eastern
gemfish, school shark, Harrison’s, endeavour and southern dogfish,
Australianfurseal,Australiansealion,shyalbatrossandmanyotherspecies.
Challenging in the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal,
the Federal Minister’s export plan for Tasmanian pademelons, Bennett’s
wallabies and brush-tail possums in Tasmania, resulting in successful
out of court negotiations for improved management regime (under the
EPBC Act).
Successfully challenging the Commonwealth in the Federal Court,
under the EPBC Act, over inappropriate guidelines for the management
and protection of threatened grey-headed flying-foxes.
Successful action in the Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunal over
an FOI application in relation to grey-headed flying-foxes.
Successful action in the NSW Administrative Appeals Tribunal over an
FOI application in relation to listed grey-headed flying-foxes.
Application in the Victorian Supreme Court in relation to grey-headed
flying-foxes to stop proposed shooting.
Federal Court action (in cooperation with Bat Advocacy) under the
EPBC Act to stop the dispersal of a colony of listed grey-headed flying-
foxes in Sydney’s Botanic Gardens (a critical habitat).
Providing a modest financial contribution to help court challenges in
Queensland by Carol Booth seeking to protect spectacled flying-foxes,
leading to removal of inhumane electric grids used to kill this threatened
species (under the EPBC Act).
Commenced proceedings in the NSW Land and Environment Court in
relation to permitting habitat destruction (listed TEC) and the dispersal
of more than 100,000 threatened grey-headed flying-foxes at Batemans
Bay, NSW. However following last minute FOI from the Department,
a decision was made to withdraw proceedings.
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A14
Grey-headed flying-foxPteropus poliocephalus
15
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
Challenging the Commonwealth in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
(with IFAW and RSPCA) over the importation of endangered Asian
elephants, successfully gaining 22 new conditions relating to the welfare
of the animals in Taronga Zoo (under the EPBC Act).
SuccessfulNSW Land and Environment Courtaction(incooperationwith
the WesternSydney Conservation Alliance) under the TSC Act, against
Penrith City Council and two Lend Lease subsidiaries, challenging the
validity of the Council decision to approve developments impacting listed
TECs and species, including the Cumberland Plain Woodland (listed after
HSI nomination). The court agreed that the Council had failed to consider
the requirements of the Recovery Plan.
Financially supporting the actions of PNG Eco-Forest Forum and their
legal team in the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea, to successfully
protect 800,000 hectares of virgin rainforest in the Kamula Dosa forest
area in the Western Province of PNG from logging.
Further financial supporting of the PNG Eco-Forest Forum in the National
Court of PNG, to successfully protect 800,000 hectares of forest in the
Kamula Dosa area, after the Court issued an injunction to stop the Office
of Climate Change from issuing rights over the forest.
Following a significant win in the Federal Court by Senator Bob Brown
to protect threatened species in Regional Forest Agreement areas (and
the Wielangta Forest, under the EPBC Act), HSI supported Bob Brown’s
court costs against an appeal in the Federal Court by Forestry Tasmania.
Financially supporting the Nature Conservation Council of NSW in their
attempt to gain protection from impacting export fisheries upon the
threatened grey nurse shark (under the EPBC Act).
Providing a modest financial contribution to the
Queensland Conservation Council in their attempt
to stop a new Xstrata coal mine approval, emitting
large amounts of carbon gases (under the
EPBC Act).
Providing a modest financial contribution to Wide Bay Burnett
Conservation Council in its attempt to protect the Australian lungfish
from a new dam development (under the EPBC Act).
Financially supporting the Tasmanian Conservation Trust (TCT) in the
Tasmanian Supreme Court, in their action under the EPBC Act to stop the
threat to listed species and habitats by the clearing of 1,804 hectares of
high conservation forest (including the HSI nominated Eucalyptus ovata
forests). The proponent eventually withdrew from the development in
the face of EPBC Act requirements.
Providing a modest financial contribution to the Northern Territory
Environment Centre for its preliminary costs hearing in relation to the
Port Melville development.
Made application to the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal
for a review of a decision, by Information Commissioner (backing up
Department of the Environment), not to release documents under the
FOI Act regarding the NSW Major Projects Offsets Policy as part of the
negotiations with the Federal Government in their One Stop Shop policy.
HSI was acting for the Places You Love Alliance.
HSI has been involved in 25 court cases as a primarylitigant or financial supporter
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
15
HSI has also been effective in the area of consumer law by utilising Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission (ACCC) formal complaint procedures, triggering a number of successful
ACCC court actions against offending corporations.
Table 3 • HSI government advisory roles (past and present)
16
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
Recovery Teams
National Marine Turtle Recovery Group
National Shark Recovery Group
Grey Nurse Shark Recovery Team
Great White Shark Recovery Team
National Albatross and Giant Petrel Recovery Team
Macquarie Island Wandering Albatross Recovery Team
National Whale Recovery Planning Group
Threat Abatement Teams
Stakeholder Group for the Threat Abatement Plan for the Incidental
Catch (or Bycatch) of Seabirds during Longline Fishing Operations (TAP)
Marine Debris Threat Abatement Plan Team
Advisory Committees and Working Groups
Commonwealth Endangered Species Advisory Committee (ESAC)
Commonwealth Biological Diversity Advisory Council (BDAC)
Australian Heritage Council
Commonwealth Expert Committee on Biodiversity Hotspots
Commonwealth Regional Natural Heritage Program (RNHP)
Commonwealth State of the Environment Reporting Council
National Oceans Advisory Group
NSW Exhibited Animals Advisory Committee
ASTEC Study Group into the Ethical Conduct of Research in Protected
and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Australian Science, Technology
and Engineering Council)
Commonwealth Exotic Birds Committee
Commonwealth Trade and Environment Working Group
Eastern Gemfish Assessment Group
Commonwealth Dugong Review Group
Dugong Rehabilitation Working Group
Great Barrier Reef Critical Issues Working Group on Fisheries
NSW Flying-fox Netting Sub-committee (NSW Environmental Trust)
NSW Flying-fox Consultative Committee (NSW OEH)
Australian Sea Lion Working Group / Marine Mammal Working Group
(Australian Fisheries Management Authority—AFMA)
Bycatch Standards Project—stakeholder engagement team
(FRDC/ABARES)
Advisory Committee for the Review of the Commonwealth Policy
on Fisheries Bycatch (DAFF)
Commonwealth Fisheries Marine Mammal Working Group (AFMA)
Shark Plan Representative Group (DAWR)
National Shark Advisory Group for the National Plan of Action
for the Conservation and management of Sharks (Shark Plan 2)
National Plan of Action for Seabirds Group
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
16
17
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
Conservation treaty meetings—government advisory roles
and working groups
HSI has provided the Australian Government with senior staff advisers to
a range of conservation treaty meetings relating to species management
over the past two decades. Below are listed the treaties and working
groups of relevance. HSI advisers have attended most of these international
gatherings as a member of Australian Government Delegations on
multiple occasions.
Australian Government Delegation to the Commission for the
Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT)
CCSBT Ecologically Related Species Working Group (ERSWG)
CCSBT Technical Seabird Working Group
Australian Government Delegation to the Convention on the
Conservation of Migratory Species of Wildlife (CMS)
Australian Government Delegation to the CMS Agreement on the
Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP)
ACAP Seabird Bycatch Working Group
ACAP Population and Conservation Status
Working Group
Australian Government Delegation to the Negotiations for a Conservation
and Management Plan (CMP) for Marine Turtles in the Indian Ocean and
Southeast Asia (IOSEA) Region (under the auspices of the CMS)
Australian Government Delegation to the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
Australian Government Delegation
to the International Whaling Commission (IWC)
Australian Government Delegation to the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Australian Government Delegation to the UNFCCC negotiations
(with particular relevance to REDD)
Australian Government Delegation to the United Nations BBJN
(Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction) Preparatory Committee
talks for the ‘Development of an internationally legally binding
instrument under UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use
of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction.’
Australian Government Delegation to the Convention on the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
Helping protect Australian threatenedspecies under global laws
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
17
Table 4 • HSI nominated species listingsPrepared by Jessica Morris*
18
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
This table lists the 73 species that HSI has either directly nominated for
protection under Commonwealth, state or territory laws, or been indirectly
involved in protecting; either by triggering review processes or convincing
governments to nominate species for protection under international treaties.
Guide
Species = Species common and scientific name
Date nominated = (By HSI)
EPBC status = Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act1999—species status (including whether listed separately as a marine and or
migratory species)
ESPA = Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act 1992
TSCA = New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
FMA = New South Wales Fisheries Management Act 1994 (threatened
species provisions)
FFG = Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
TSPA = Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
CMS = Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
CITES = Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora
CH = Either listed in legislative critical habitat register or habitat is specified in recovery plan, conservation advice or guidelines
TEC = Species occurs in HSI nominated/listed Threatened Ecological Community
CA = Conservation advice provided at time of listing where conservation
actions are recommended
GL = Indicates that conservation guidelines have been published relevant
to species
RP = Recovery Plan has been prepared
KTP = Indicates a Key Threatening Process affecting the species is recognised
in law for one or more key threats
TAP = Indicates a Threat Abatement Plan affecting the species is being
implemented for one or more key threats
Comment = An indication of the species current status. RP = Recovery Plan, AP = Action Plan, SP = Species Profile,
BP = Background Papers, LA = Listing Advice
Green dot = Species protected but not due to specific HSI nomination
Red dot = Species is on the EPBC critical habitat register
Reference
Australian Bird Action Plan 2010 used for population data on albatross and petrels.
Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012 used for population data on mammals.
18
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
*HSI Program Officer
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
1919
Species Nominated ESPA EPBC StatusTSCANSW
FMANSW
FFGVIC
TSPTAS
CMS CITES CH TEC CA GL RP KTP TAP Comments
Seabirds
Wandering albatrossDiomedea exulans
1994 • Vulnerable, Marine,Migratory • • • • • • • •1
Recovery Plan (RP) unable to determinepopulation status at Macquarie and Heard Islands.All populations have shown decreasing trendsover last 25 years. AP = critically endangered.
Sooty albatrossPhoebetria fusca
1996 • Vulnerable, Marine,Migratory • • • • • • •
Bird Action Plan (AP) indicates populationdeclines from all breeding islands surveyed. AP = endangered.
Black-browed albatrossThalassarche melanophris
1996 • Vulnerable, Marine,Migratory • • • • • • • •
RP indicates stable population on MacquarieIsland. Unknown in most other breeding sites.Global population is declining. AP = endangered.
Shy albatrossThalassarche cauta
1996 • Vulnerable, Marine,Migratory • • • • • • • RP describes decreasing trends for shy albatross
at all three breeding sites. AP = vulnerable.
Amsterdam albatross2
Diomedea amsterdamensis • Endangered, Marine,Migratory • • • • •
Species Profile (SP) shows low number of known individuals. However, general populationis unknown.
Antipodean albatrossDiomedea antipodensis • Vulnerable, Marine,
Migratory • • •SP indicates population increase of 3% perannum. AP shows that some populations are still unstable. AP = endangered.
Tristan albatrossDiomedea dabbenena • Endangered, Marine,
Migratory • • •Background Papers (BP) suggests thatpopulation is unknown, while AP indicates a 5% annual decline. AP = Critically endangered
Southern royal albatrossDiomedea epomophora • Vulnerable, Marine,
Migratory • • • •The numbers that occur in Australian waters isunknown. However, likely population increase onsome islands in recent decades. AP = vulnerable
Gibson's albatrossDiomedea gibsoni • Vulnerable, Marine,
Migratory • • • •Population status in Australia is unknown.Population decreases of >20% have beenpredicted due to bycatch mortality.
Northern royal albatrossDiomedea sanfordi • Endangered, Marine,
Migratory • • •Population unknown, likely suffered populationdecline however it has not yet become evident.AP = endangered.
Light-mantled albatrossPhoebetria palpebrata • Marine, Migratory • • • • • •
AP data shows increasing population onMacquarie Is. and Heard Is. Unknown elsewhere.Globalpopulation likelydeclining.AP=endangered.
Buller’s albatrossThalassarche bulleri • Vulnerable, Marine,
Migratory • • • • BP indicates population is stable. AP = near threatened.
Indian yellow-nosed albatrossThalassarche carteri • Vulnerable, Marine,
Migratory • • • •Current status unknown. However AP indicatespopulation on Amsterdam Island is in decline. AP = endangered.
Species Nominated ESPA EPBC StatusTSCANSW
FMANSW
FFGVIC
TSPTAS
CMS CITES CH TEC CA GL RP KTP TAP Comments
Grey-headed albatrossThalassarche chrysostoma • Endangered, Marine,
Migratory • • • • • • •RP population data shows decreasing populationat Macquarie Island breeding site. Global trendsshow population decline. AP = criticallyendangered.
Chatham albatrossThalassarche eremita • Endangered, Marine,
Migratory • • • • BP indicates population is stable, but is yet to be confirmed.
Campbell albatrossThalassarche impavida • Vulnerable, Marine,
Migratory • • • AP describes current population status asunknown. AP = vulnerable
Salvin's albatrossThalassarche salvini • Vulnerable, Marine,
Migratory • • • • AP indicates information required on populationtrends and changes. AP = vulnerable
Pacific albatrossThalassarche nov. sp. (platei) • Vulnerable, Marine,
Migratory • • • No data population data for this species.
White-capped albatrossThalassarche steadi • Vulnerable, Marine,
Migratory • • •AP indicates the species is in decline due tobycatch in longline fisheries, however this is notconfirmed. AP = vulnerable
Northern giant petrelMacronectes halli
1999 • Vulnerable, Marine,Migratory • • • • • • • •
Possible recommendation for delisting in actionplan. Population trend shows decreasingpopulation at Macquarie Island.
Southern giant petrelMacronectes giganteus
1999 • Vulnerable, Marine,Migratory • • • • • • • •
Possible recommendation for delisting in actionplan. Population trend shows decreasingpopulation at Macquarie Island. Unknown forother breeding sites.
Manly Point population of littlepenguins3 1996 • • • • • •
Latest figures indicate population may be stablehowever predation from foxes may have causeda decline in 2015.
Sharks4
White sharkCarcharodon carcharias
1997 • Vulnerable, Migratory • • • • • • • • • • •RP suggests NSW populations may be stablehowever no evidence of recovery of white sharknumbers in Australia.
Grey nurse sharkCarcharias taurus
2000 • Critically endangered (East Coast Population) • • • • • • • •
RP shows no evidence that the east coastpopulation has improved since its listing. There iseven less evidence for the west coast population.
School sharkGaleorhinus galeus
2003 Conservation Dependent5 • • A
SP states that there is no evidence of currentpopulation trends or data on whether currentmanagement measures are assisting rebuildingof stocks.
20
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
20
21
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A21
Species Nominated ESPA EPBC StatusTSCANSW
FMANSW
FFGVIC
TSPTAS
CMS CITES CH TEC CA GL RP KTP TAP Comments
Shortfin mako sharkIsurus oxyrinchus
2009 Migratory B •Population assessments of this species areextremely limited, and Listing Advice (LA) statesthere are no Australian fishery independentsurveys or stock assessments for this species.
Longfin mako sharkIsurus paucus
2009 Migratory B • Commonwealth claims insufficient evidence forstock and population assessments.
Scalloped hammerhead sharkSphyrna lewini
2010 Awaiting listing approval • • •Studies currently underway to determinepopulation size for this species within Australianwaters.
Great hammerhead sharkSphyrna mokarran
2009 Awaiting listing approval • • •Studies currently underway to determinepopulation size for this species within Australianwaters.
Spotted wobbegongOrectolobus maculatus
2016 Awaiting listing approvalLA states that there are no population estimatesavailable for this species. However, a substantialdecline in numbers was documented in NSW.
Dusky sharkCarcharhinus obscurus
2009 BAustralian population is genetically differentfrom global stocks, although widely distributedthere is little information on current abundance.
Bull sharkCarcharhinus leucas
2010 B NSW Fishery claim insufficient evidence forstock and population assessments.
Sandbar sharkCarcharhinus plumbeus
2010 B NSW Fishery claim insufficient evidence forpopulation assessments.
Marine Turtles6
Olive RidleyLepidochelys olivacea • Endangered, Marine,
Migratory • • • • • •There is no data to indicate Australian population size, nesting sites or foragingpopulations for this species.
Flatback turtleNatator depressus • Vulnerable, Marine,
Migratory • • • • SP states that there are no current populationestimates for this species.
Pinnipeds
Southern elephant sealMirounga leonina
1999 • Vulnerable, Marine • • • • • • Decreasing trends at Macquarie Is. Decreasedpopulation assumed for Heard Is.
Sub-antarctic fur sealArctocephalus tropicalis
1999 • Vulnerable, Marine • • • • • •Abundance of this species has been hard todetermine, however data from AP suggests thatnumbers are not increasing at either MacquarieIs. or Heard Is.
22
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
22
Species Nominated ESPA EPBC StatusTSCANSW
FMANSW
FFGVIC
TSPTAS
CMS CITES CH TEC CA GL RP KTP TAP Comments
Australian sea lionNeophoca cinerea7 2016 Vulnerable, Marine • • • • • Latest research shows a substantial decline
in numbers.
Cetaceans
Sei whaleBalaenoptera borealis
1996Vulnerable, Cetacean,Migratory • • • • • • • Abundance and population trend unknown.
No evidence of population increase.
Fin whaleBalaenoptera physalus
1996Vulnerable, Cetacean,Migratory • • • • • • • •
Abundance and population trend of this speciesis unknown. Evidence that some populationsmay be increasing.
Fish (Marine)
Orange roughyHoplostethus atlanticus
2003 Conservation dependant • •
After a significant decline due to commercialfishing, current population estimates remainunclear. This species was re-opened forCommonwealth fisheries in 2015 as populationswere believed to have shown some improvement.In our view there is little evidence to show thatthis species has sufficiently recovered enough to be commercially exploited.
Eastern gemfishRexea solandri
2002 Conservation dependant • • A
Two distinct breeding stocks in Australia.Projections indicate an upward population trend.After a significant decline due to commercialfishing, current population estimates remainunclear. This species was re-opened forCommonwealth fisheries in 2015 as populationswere believed to have shown some improvement.In our view there is little evidence to show thatthis species has sufficiently recovered enough to be commercially exploited.
Southern bluefin tunaThunnus maccoyii 2006 Conservation dependant •* •~ • •
The TSSC advised the Federal Minister specieswas endangered. This species has a single globalpopulation with last estimates showing around460,000 mature individuals.
Fish (Aquatic)
Dwarf galaxiasGalaxiella pusilla
1994 • Vulnerable • • • •RP states population shows no reduction inrange however populations have beensubstantially fragmented.
Elizabeth Springs gobyChlamydogobius micropterus
1994 • Endangered • • • • • •Range has significantly decreased, with currentrange size likely able to support 1000-2000individuals.
23
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A23
Species Nominated ESPA EPBC StatusTSCANSW
FMANSW
FFGVIC
TSPTAS
CMS CITES CH TEC CA GL RP KTP TAP Comments
Oxleyan pygmy perchNannoperca oxleyana
1994 • Endangered • • • • • •Naturally rare species however anthropogenicimpacts have contributed to loss of abundanceand patchiness of population.
Murray hardyheadCraterocephalus fluviatilis
1994 • Endangered • • • • • • • Some locations indicate a decline in population,while others appear to be stable.
Red-finned blue-eyeScaturiginichthys vermeilipinnis
1994 • Endangered • • • • • •Population trends are unknown due to seasonalfluctuations of abundance. Current populationestimate is around 3000 individuals.
TerrestrialMammals
Grey-headed flying-foxPteropus poliocephalus
1999 Vulnerable • • • •8 • • •AP states population is estimated at between300,000 and 700,000 individuals. Populationtrends are unknown; most studies consider thepopulation to be in decline. AP = vulnerable
Spectacled flying-foxPteropus conspicillatus
20169 Vulnerable • •8 • • •Currently population size is relatively largehowever continued threats are resulting incontinued decline of the species. AP = Nearthreatened.
Pilbara leaf-nosed batRhinonicteris aurantia
1999 Vulnerable • •Species has been found to be more widespreadthan previously known. No data for estimation of abundance. AP = vulnerable
Semon’s leaf-nosed batHipposideros semoni
1999 • Endangered • • • •Some evidence of decline, but most data is poor.Small population size makes it vulnerable tothreats. AP = near threatened/new knowledge.
Greater large-eared horseshoe batRhinolophus robertsi
1999 • Endangered • • • •No estimates of abundance are available. Likely a naturally rare species, however it is still subjectto population decline. AP = near threatened/newknowledge
South eastern long-eared batNyctophilus corbeni
1999 Vulnerable • • • •A substantial decrease in population has beendetermined due to habitat loss however there isno current data indicating population size orabundance. AP = vulnerable
Large-eared pied batChalinolobus dwyeri
1999 • Vulnerable • • • • AP states that population decline has beeninferred for this species. AP = vulnerable
Christmas Island pipistrelle batPipistrellus murrayi
1999 • Critically Endangered • • • • • •Studies undertaken since August 2009 havefailed to find any remaining pipistrelles. The APnow considers this species as extinct.
Bare-rumped sheathtail batSaccolaimus saccolaimus
1999 • Critically Endangered • •Population size and trends are unknown. AP = near threatened, new knowledge andtaxonomic change.
24
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
24
Species Nominated ESPA EPBC StatusTSCANSW
FMANSW
FFGVIC
TSPTAS
CMS CITES CH TEC CA GL RP KTP TAP Comments
Koala (Avalon population)Phascolarctos cinereus10 1996 • • • •
Surveys conducted in 2003 found no animals leftin Avalon, few remain in the extended area of Ku-ring-gai but these are also in decline.
Bramble Cay melomysMelomys rubicola
1996 • Endangered • • • •SP states that surveys conducted in 2011 and2012 were unable to find any remaining BrambleCay melomys, which may indicate the species isnow extinct. May be the first casualty of climatechange due to rising sea level.
Carpentarian rock-ratZyzomys palatilis
1996 • Endangered • • •There is no information on current populationtrends, with data estimating fewer than 2000individuals. AP = critically endangered
Northern marsupial moleNotoryctes caurinus
1996 • EndangeredDelisted in December 2015 being ineligible forlisting as threatened under the EPBC Act. AP = least concern.
Southern marsupial moleNotoryctes typhlops
1996 • EndangeredDelisted in December 2015 being ineligible forlisting as threatened under the EPBC Act. AP = least concern.
Long-nosed bandicoot (North Head population)Perameles nasuta11
1996 • • • • • •While population is stable, low numbers ofbandicoots in the North Head area is still aconcern. AP = least concern.
Kangaroo Island dunnartSminthopsis aitkeni
1996 • Endangered • • •Total population size is unknown, however SPstates that there has been significant populationcontraction due to habitat loss. AP = endangered
Boullanger Island dunnart Sminthopsis boullangerensis
1996 • VulnerableNot recognised as distinct species. AP for fullspecies = least concern
Reptiles
Allan’s leristaLerista allanae
1994 • Endangered • • • • • Thought extinct until rediscovered in 2009.
Western spiny tailed skinkEgernia stokesii badia
1994 • Endangered • • • •RP states that population trends are mostlyunknown, however it is inferred that like otherAustralian skink populations this species is in decline.
Blue Mountains water skinkEulamprus leuraensis
1994 • Endangered • • • • •There is no evidence to suggest that this speciesis in decline, however current population size isunknown.
Dreeite water skinkEulamprus tympanum marnieae
1994 • Endangered • • • • • Population size has contracted, and in at leasttwo areas this species is now extinct.
25
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I AT H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
25
A Subject to rebuilding strategy B On hold pending new data C Delisted 2009 * Endangered ~Threatened
1 The Threat Abatement Plan for the “Incidental catch (or bycatch) of
seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations” (nominated by HSI)
seeks to mitigate the impact of long-line fishing on 36 seabird species.
2 HSI’s successful early nominations for four albatross species under the ESPA
triggered a Scientific Committee review of the status of all albatrosses in
Australian waters, leading to the listing of a further 14 species. Our albatross
nominations triggered similar reviews under Tasmanian and Victorian
conservation law. HSI also worked with the Australian Government to see
the listing of 14 albatross species under the Convention on the Conservation
of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS Convention).
3 Nomination made jointly with the Manly Environment Centre and the NSW
Threatened Species Network (TSN).
4 In addition to the shark nominations made under specific threatened species
laws, numerous nominations were made for a number of shark species
listed in this table (and the whale and basking sharks) for protection under
all state and territory fisheries legislation with varying degrees of success.
5 Conservation Dependant—conservation dependent species means a listed
threatened species that is included in the conservation dependent category
of the list referred to in section 178. Such a listing generally only applies to
marine fish species, and allows species to continue to be exploited
commercially. Species recognised as ‘Conservation Dependent’ do not
receive special protection, as they are not considered "matters of national
environmental significance under the EPBC Act".
6 HSI’s successful nomination of “Incidental catch (or bycatch) of Sea Turtle
during coastal otter-trawling operations within Australian waters north of
28 degrees south” triggered a national review of marine turtle conservation
status in Australia, resulting in the listing of the two additional species.
7 Awaiting result of HSI up-listing nomination from Vulnerable to Endangered.
8 Nationally-important grey-headed and spectacled flying-fox camps are in
HSI’s view de-facto Critical Habitats and should be treated as such under law.
9 Upgrade being assessed for Endangered based on 2016 HSI Nomination.
10Nomination made jointly with Manly Environment Centre and the NSW
Threatened Species Network (TSN).
1 1 Nomination made jointly with Manly Environment Centre and the NSW
Threatened Species Network (TSN).
12 Nomination made jointly with Greenpeace.
Species Nominated ESPA EPBC StatusTSCANSW
FMANSW
FFGVIC
TSPTAS
CMS CITES CH TEC CA GL RP KTP TAP Comments
Bellingen River emyduraEmydura signata
1994Delisted under the EPBCAct, taxonomic issues C Delisted following population improvement 2013
and taxonomy change.
Namoi River elseyaWollumbinia belli
1994 • Vulnerable • • • • •There are very few records of this speciesavailable which makes it hard to determinepopulation size and trends.
Mary River turtleElusor macrurus
1994 • Endangered • • •This species is rare throughout its known range.Little knowledge on population size. Reductionin breeding females. Hard to determine trends.
Amphibians
Green and golden bell frogLitoria aurea12 1996 Vulnerable • • • • •
There have been many localised extinctions ofthis species, current data not explicitly showing a decline in population trends.
The Critical Habitat Register has failed to adequately protect threatened
species habitats as it was designed to under the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Due to explicit
political and bureaucratic determination not to implement these essential
conservation provisions, to what extent have Threatened Ecological
Community (TEC) listings become a de facto EPBC Act critical habitat
protection measure? While this publication heavily promotes the need
for vastly stronger EPBC Act critical habitat clauses seeking ‘red light’
legislative provisions (see page 66), we also want to make the case
that TECs are currently providing essential ‘back-up’ off-reserve habitat
protection for a large number of species listed as threatened under the
EPBC Act. As such, much stronger efforts are required for their protection.
HSI has been preparing scientific nominations to list TECs under
Commonwealth and state law for over 20 years, and a review of that
program was published as an HSI Special Bulletin launched at the IUCN
World Parks Congress in Sydney in 2014. TECs first emerged in
Commonwealth law in the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992
(following on from their inaugural inclusion in the Victorian Flora and
Fauna Guarantee Act 1988) and were fully ensconced in the EPBC Act
as a ‘Matter of National Environmental Significance’ in 1999. Even if the
Critical Habitat Register was to be properly utilised by the Federal
Government, the critical threatened species habitat protection role would
remain restricted, as at present the Register can only be enforced on
Commonwealth owned land and waters—TECs, on the other hand, provide
legislative protection across all land tenures.
To date 78 TECs (broad groupings that represent hundreds of ecological
communities or their equivalents recognised as threatened by states and
territories) are listed under the EPBC Act, covering around 7 million
hectares. HSI has successfully proposed the listing of 27 of these
communities, amounting to approximately 35% of the total currently
recognised at the Federal level. HSI has also successfully proposed the
listing of 27 TECs under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act
1995. While an analysis of threatened species benefitting from these
state listings was not undertaken, 10 of the NSW TECs are also listed
under the EPBC Act (following HSI nominations).
A brief analysis of EPBC Act listed species occurring in HSI nominated TECsThe 27 HSI nominated TECs cover an area of approximately 4.8 million
hectares or 67% of the total area of occupancy of all EPBC Act listed
communities. The 13 Critically Endangered, 13 Endangered and
1 Vulnerable ecological communities represent a range of terrestrial,
freshwater and marine environments across all states and territories
(except the ACT) and a large number are multijurisdictional. For example,
Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh, an Endangered Ecological
Community, spans six jurisdictions (QLD, NSW, VIC, TAS, SA and WA).
The following (opposite) chart indicates the current jurisdictional
spread of HSI nominated EPBC Act listed TECs.
An analysis investigating the EPBC Act listed species that are components
of and have habitat protected through Commonwealth TEC listings that
were nominated by HSI, shows that a significant 280 species are provided
additional protection. Table 1 on page 29 shows the number of faunal and
floral species found in each of the 27 HSI nominated TECs, including an
indication of the status and extent of each community, and the date it
was listed as a Matter of National Environment Significance.
Conserving EPBC Act Listed Species Through De Facto Critical Habitat ProtectionEVAN QUARTERMAIN1 and LAURA MUIR2
26
1HSI Senior Program Manager
2HSI Project Officer
Points of particular note that were extracted from HSI nominated TEC
analysis include:
• A total of 186 threatened flora species occur as components of the
TECs (see appendix I);
• The TECs provide and protect habitat for a total 94 threatened fauna
species (see table on page 30);
• The TECs containing the highest number of Critically Endangered
species were the Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian
Wheatbelt (7) and Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania (5);
• The TECs containing the highest total number of EPBC listed species
were the Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt (87),
Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived
Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia (30), and Natural
Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (29);
• The EPBC Act listed species provided habitat by the highest number
of HSI nominated TECs were:
– Birds: painted honeyeater (10); swift parrot (9); regent honeyeater
(8); hooded robin (7);
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
27
0 10 20 30 70
Upland Basalt Eucalypt Forests of the Sydney Basin Bioregion
Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion
Castlereagh Scribbly Gum and Agnes Banks Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion
Hunter Valley Weeping Myall (Acacia pendula) Woodland
Weeping Myall Woodlands
The community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin
Lowland Grassy Woodland in the South East Corner Bioregion
New England Peppermint (Eucalyptus nova-anglica) Grassy Woodlands
Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions
Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant)
Coolibah–Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Riverine Plains and the Brigalow Belt South Bioregions
Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest
Gippsland Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis subsp. mediana) Grassy Woodland and Associated Native Grassland
Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia
Upland Wetlands of the New England Tablelands and the Monaro Plateau
Central Hunter Valley eucalypt forest and woodland
Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania
Natural Grasslands of the Murray Valley Plains
Natural Grasslands of the Queensland Central Highlands and the northern Fitzroy Basin
Natural Grasslands on basalt and fine-textured alluvial plains of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland
Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain
Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone
Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia
Posidonia australis seagrass meadows of the Manning-Hawksbury ecoregion
Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh
Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt
Warkworth Sands Woodland of the Hunter Valley
FaunaFlora
Chart 2. EPBC Act listed flora and fauna in each HSI nominated TEC
NSW21
VIC7
SA4
QLD9
NT1
TAS3
WA2
Chart 1. Jurisdictional range
of HSI nominated TECs
– Mammals: spotted-tailed quoll (11); koala (9); grey-headed flying-fox
(8); large-eared pied bat (7); squirrel glider (7);
– Other fauna: growling grass frog (3); green and golden bell frog (4);
– Flora: Austral Toadflax (6);
• Only one spider listed under the EPBC Act is provided habitat by an
HSI nominated TEC, the shield-backed trapdoor spider (Idiosoma
nigrum) (protected by the Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western
Australian Woodbelt) and only two insects: Synemon plana—golden
sun moth (Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic
Plain) and Jaimenus evagoras ebulus—northern imperial hairstreak
butterfly (Brigalow—Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant).
These figures are reflective of the paucity of insects listed under the
schedules to the EPBC Act;
• The Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh TEC comprises
26 species which fall under CMS, CAMBA, JAMBA or ROKAMBA,
as well as 60 threatened species of fauna (52 protected under state
legislation, 8 under the EPBC Act and 11 threatened species of flora
(2 EPBC Act listed);
• Posidonia australis seagrass meadows of the Manning-Hawkesbury
ecoregion has the largest number of listed EPBC Act listed `Marine
Species’ with 8.
As noted, the Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt
ecological community contains the highest number of EPBC Act listed
threatened species. This TEC has undergone a decline in extent of
approximately 85%, and the clearance of native vegetation is identified
in the community’s Conservation Advice as the principal threat to its long-
term survival. This is largely because the wheatbelt region is dominated
by agricultural land uses and has been extensively cleared of native
vegetation. Under the EPBC Act, routine farm activities can continue
without approval if they began before July 2000. However, the threatened
species present are provided an additional layer of protection through
new or expanded farm activities that are likely to have a significant
impact on a nationally protected matter requiring Federal referral
and approval.
Among the eight ‘Marine’ species listed under the EPBC Act provided
habitat by Posidonia australis seagrass meadows of the Manning-
Hawkesbury ecoregion is the White’s seahorse (Hippocampus whitei)
which is classified as a Data Deficient species by the IUCN. Subtropical
and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh boasts the highest number of species
benefiting from international, national and state protection, with
19 component species listed under the Convention on the Conservation
of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), 23 under the China-Australia
Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) and 24 included under the Japan-
Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA). A further 20 species in
this TEC are protected by the Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory
Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA). Species listed under these treaties are
included in the ‘migratory species list’ of the EPBC Act in section 209.
However with a relatively low level of protection provided through
these agreements, the corresponding EPBC Act TEC listings remain
one of their best available chances of recovery.
Australia’s smallest freshwater fish, the redfin blue eye (Scaturiginichthys
vermeilipinnis), which grows to a maximum length of 3cm and is listed
as Endangered under the EPBC Act, is endemic to the Community of
native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the
Great Artesian Basin, a TEC listed in 2001. The habitats protected by
this TEC which are critical to the survival of the species are spring fed
28
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
29
Name Status Size (ha)Effective
sinceNSW
TSC ActEPBC threatened
species
Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) Endangered 804,264 4 Apr ’01 13
Castlereagh Scribbly Gum and Agnes Banks Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Endangered 3,190 17 Mar ’15 Yes 14
Central Hunter Valley Eucalypt Forest and Woodland Critically Endangered 37,000 7 May ’15 Yes 10
Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered 1,100 17 Mar ’15 Yes 20
Coolibah–Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Riverline Plains and the Brigalow Belt South Bioregions Endangered 1,321,103 1 Mar ’11 Yes 10
Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest Critically Endangered 12,300 9 Dec ’09 Yes 16
Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian Woodbelt Critically Endangered 939,500 4 Dec ’15 87
Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South Australia Endangered 525 29 Aug ’12 1
Gippsland Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis subsp. mediana) Grassy Woodland and Associated Native Critically Endangered 3,295 7 Jan ’09 13
Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia
Endangered 534,500 1 Apr ’10 32
Hunter Valley Weeping Myall (Acacia pendula) Woodland Critically Endangered 4 1 Aug ’05 Yes 5
Lowland Grassy Woodland in the South East Corner Bioregion Critically Endangered 20,007 16 Feb ’13 Yes 4
Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania Critically Endangered 21,600 25 Jun ’09 23
Natural Grasslands of the Murray Valley Plain Critically Endangered 160,500 8 Sep ’12 11
Natural Grasslands of the Queensland Central Highlands and the northern Fitzroy Basin Endangered 241,584 7 Jan ’09 5
Natural grasslands on basalt and fine-textured alluvial plains of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland
Critically Endangered 29,318 7 Jan ’09 11
Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain Critically Endangered 5,271 21 Jun ’08 29
New England Peppermint (Eucalyptus nova-anglica) Grassy Woodlands Critically Endangered 14,127 1 Mar ’11 Yes 12
Posidonia australis seagrass meadows of the Manning-Hawkesbury ecoregion Endangered 1,400 7 May ’15 8 Listed Marine
Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions Endangered 150,000 4 Apr ’01 12
Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh Vulnerable 121,500 10 Aug ’13 10
Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone Endangered 3,000 12 May ’05 12
The community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin
Endangered 100 4 Apr ’01 7
Upland Basalt Eucalypt Forests of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Endangered 4,198 25 Nov ’11 17
Upland Wetlands of the New England Tablelands & Monaro Plateau Endangered 3,195 17 Nov ’05 Yes 1 Listed Marine
Warkworth Sands Woodland of the Hunter Valley Critically Endangered 6,500 5 May ’16 Yes 12
Weeping Myall Woodlands Endangered 290,500 17 Nov ’05 3
Total 4,729,581
Table 1. HSI TEC listing details
wetlands with a groundwater source from the Great Artesian Basin
within a 5 km radius of Edgbaston Springs.3 Currently, the fish is found
in four springs with an estimated population of between 2,000 and
4,000 individuals.
This TEC is an indication of the considerable role listings can play in
protecting critical habitat for threatened species, and led to a 2008
land purchase by Bush Heritage Australia. Bush Heritage has since
operated a project to protect the redfin blue eye from predation by
introduced species—the main threat facing the endangered species
being the Gambusia holbrooki fish, introduced as a biological control for
mosquitoes. The listing also led to a Recovery Plan being implemented
by the Department of the Environment in 2009, targeting aquifer draw-
down, excavation of springs, feral animal disturbance and exotic aquatic
animals4. Consequently, HSI not only helped achieved protection of this
critical habitat through the nomination of a TEC, but helped trigger
considerable additional conservation efforts to prevent the extinction
of this unique species.
A new approach focusing directly on threatened species:Faunal-based TECsThe 2015 round of HSI’s EPBC Act TEC nominations program took a
unique approach through the preparation of a faunal-based submission
for the Mallee bird community of the Murray Darling Depression bioregion.
30
3http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=56792 4http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/great-artesian-basin-ec
1 Spotted-tail quoll 20 Green and golden bell frog 39 Squatter pigeon 58 Retro slider 77 Port phillip pipefish
2 Brush-tailed rock-wallaby 21 Painted honey eater 40 Black-tailed godwit 59 Star finch 78 Yellow chat (dawson)3 Koala 22 Plains-wanderer 41 Greater long-eared bat 60 Eastern hare-wallaby 79 Orange-bellied parrot
4 Long-nosed potoroo 23 Superb parrot 42 Five-clawed worm skink 61 Greater bilby 80 Australian fairy tern
5 Smoky mouse 24 Elizabeth Springs goby 43 Southern-brown bandicoot 62 Large bent-wing bat 81 Southern emu-wren
6 Grey-headed flying-fox 25 Red-finned blue-eye 44 Growling grass frog 63 Gould’s mouse 82 False water rat
7 Giant burrowing frog 26 Boggomoss snail 45 Red-tailed black cockatoo 64 Masked owl 83 Woylie
8 Littlejohn’s tree frog 27 Black throated finch 46 Spotted quail-thrush 65 Grassland earless dragon 84 Muir's corella (southern)
9 Stuttering frog 28 Booroolong frog 47 Chestnut-rumped heathwren 66 Corangamite water skink 85 Forest red-tailed black-cockatoo
10 Giant barred frog 29 Lined earless dragon 48 Malleefowl 67 Blue Mountains water skink 86 Baudin's black-cockatoo
11 Australasian bittern 30 Border thick-tailed gecko 49 Pilliga mouse 68 Red handfish 87 Carnaby's black-cockatoo
12 Crested shrike-tit 31 Blackbreasted button-quail 50 Flinders Ranges worm lizard 69 Weedy seadragon 88 Chuditch, western quoll
13 Swift parrot 32 Eastern long-eared bat 51 Latham’s snipe 70 Ziebell’s handfish 89 Western spiny-tailed skink
14 Australian painted snipe 33 Brigalow scaly-foot 52 Wedge-tail eagle (Tasmanian) 71 Little penguin 90 Shield-backed trapdoor spider
15 Painted button quail 34 Bridled nail-tail wallaby 53 Eastern-barred bandicoot 72 White’s seahorse 91 Numbat
16 Large eared pied bat 35 Collared delma 54 Tasmanian devil 73 Spotted pipefish 92 Dibbler
17 New Holland mouse 36 Ornamental snake 55 Bass strait wombat 74 Widebody pipefish 93 Red-tailed phascogale
18 Regent honeyeater 37 Yakka skink 56 Striped legless lizard 75 Hairy pipefish 94 Quokka
19 Broadheaded snake 38 Dunmail’s snake 57 Golden sun moth 76 Mother-of-pearl pipefish
Table 2. EPBC Act listed fauna protected under HSI nominated TECs
Departing from the traditional TEC based on vegetation assemblages,
this unusual approach sought to secure habitat for dozens of threatened
bird species with tied fates and was the first listing of its kind. The
nomination was successful in being included on the 2015 EPBC Finalised
Priority Assessment List with an assessment deadline for the Threatened
Species Scientific Committee to provide its advice to the Minister for
the Environment by 31 October 2018.
The Mallee bird community of the Murray Darling Depression Bioregion
is an ecological community defined by an assemblage of more than
20 terrestrial avian species and is characterised by the presence of their
habitat. Key component species include the Mallee emu-wren (Stipiturus
mallee), malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata), regent parrot (Polytelis anthopeplus
monarchoides), western whipbird (Psophodes nigrogularis leucogaster),
and black-eared miner (Manorina melanotis), all of which are listed as
threatened species under the EPBC Act. Our nomination recognises their
mutualistic relationship and the need for all-encompassing conservation
strategies and actions.
This TEC is an ecosystem in the balance, and our nomination seeks
prioritisation of conservation investment to improve its resilience to
threats and ensure the survival of the many threatened species that
comprise it. Although a similar community is listed as threatened under
the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and many of the
component species already have legislative protection, the ecological
community as a whole would benefit from national listing due to the
many shared threats and distributions of component species that span
Victoria, South Australia and NSW. The umbrella protection provided by
an EPBC Act TEC listing is simply the most appropriate and encompassing
conservation mechanism for these threatened species. As a result, we
now have several other faunal-based
TECs in development.
Critical role of ThreatenedEcological CommunitiesHSI argues that under the EPBC Act TECs are currently stronger than
critical habitat provisions due to the huge disparity in area covered, an
out of date and underutilised Critical Habitat Register, and its provisions
relating only to Commonwealth areas. With several million hectares of
threatened species habitat provided with a layer of legislative protection
through TEC listings, their presence regularly comes into consideration
during development assessment and the preparation of strategic plans.
However the treatment of EPBC Act TECs once listed still leaves much to
be desired, and given their vital role in the protection of critical habitats
for threatened species, their protective status must be ensured through
the enforcement of ‘red light’ EPBC Act provisions. These issues and
recommendations for improvement are discussed in greater detail on
page 66.
The analysis outlined in this chapter focuses only on those species that
are currently recognised as threatened under the EPBC Act, but beyond
doubt, TECs provide protection for a number of threatened species that
are yet to be listed/recognised. Additionally, our own internal estimates
indicate that currently listed TECs represent only a third of the habitats
that may be eligible for EPBC Act protection. Researching, nominating,
listing and consequently protecting all remaining TECs is an essential
conservation process, with a primary need for a highly funded and planned
Commonwealth assessment process to be immediately engaged.
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
31
Heritage Listings: As a member of the inaugural Australia Heritage Council and through public
nomination processes, HSI also helped build the list of approximately 70 natural area listings
under the EPBC Act’s ‘National’ and ‘Commonwealth’ Heritage schedules, giving further layered
protection to a large number of listed threatened species.
10 HSI nominated TECsprovide habitat for thepainted honeyeater
The Wildlife Land Trust (WLT), Humane Society International’s private
land conservation program, supports and provides recognition of the
wildlife species and habitat protection efforts of hundreds of landowners
over tens of thousands of hectares across Australia. From Carnaby’s
black-cockatoos (Calyptorhynchus latirostris) in the west through to
grey-headed flying-foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus) along the east coast,
mahogany gliders (Petaurus gracilis) in the north, down to forty-spotted
pardalotes (Pardalotus quadragintus) at the foot of Tasmania, the
presence of threatened species on WLT sanctuaries throughout the
country highlights the importance of conservation efforts on private
land in protecting habitat for the wildlife species that need it most.
And this is achieved without any special focus on properties that cater
for threatened species—working under the guiding principle of “humane
stewardship”, the WLT protects not only impressive landscapes, but also
the smaller, humbler places that provide for the needs of all wildlife, rare
and common species alike. The Australian WLT sanctuary network now
has over 400 members and 50,000 hectares of wildlife-friendly land,
and with biodiversity under increasing pressure nationally, there is no
doubt that this rapidly growing network will play a progressively more
important role in protecting threatened wildlife and their habitats.
In many cases the role of providing habitat for threatened species has
already reached crisis point, a prime example being the colony of forty-
spotted pardalotes (Pardalotus quadragintus)—listed as Endangered
under the EPBC Act—at Inala, a 607 hectare WLT sanctuary on Bruny
Island, Tasmania. A recent study estimated the total population of the
Tasmanian endemic forty-spotted pardalote at a rapidly declining 1,500
individuals. Of the more than 100 colonies surveyed only five did not
show a decline in abundance, with the largest of these at Inala—meaning
the most significant stable population of forty-spotted pardalotes in the
world occurs on this WLT sanctuary. Without the efforts and dedicated
stewardship of Dr Tonia Cochran, who acquired Inala in the early 1990s,
there is no doubt that the future of the forty-spotted pardalote would
be looking considerably more dismal.
While all WLT sanctuaries may not provide quite such an individual
contribution to threatened species protection, when considered
collectively it is evident that they play an integral role in the bigger
picture against a number of important measures including habitat
connectivity, important sites for the recovery of species with restricted
ranges, and a prominent presence within biodiversity hotspots. Regardless
of how the importance to threatened species conservation is being
measured WLT members are playing a crucial part, as demonstrated
through the following examples:
Site specifics: Alignment with the NSW Saving our Species programSaving our Species (SOS) is a conservation program run by the NSW
Office of Environment and Heritage that aims to maximise the number
of threatened species that can be secured in the wild in the state. Through
the program, threatened species are allocated one of six management
streams depending on their distribution, ecology, security, and what is
known about them—one of the priority streams being for site-managed
species. Targeted conservation projects for this stream are being run at
key management sites across the state in an attempt to secure species
with discrete populations that can be geographically defined.
Wildlife Land Trust—Protecting Listed Species EVAN QUARTERMAIN1
32
1HSI Senior Program Manager
Comparing the locations of Wildlife Land Trust sanctuaries in New South
Wales with those of SOS management sites, we found that 61.4% (105
of the current 171 WLT sanctuaries in the state) intersected with places
identified as being key sites for the protection and recovery of threatened
species such as the yellow-spotted tree frog (Litoria castanea), regent
honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia), eastern chestnut mouse (Pseudomys
gracilicaudatus), Bathurst copper butterfly (Paralucia spinifera), and
Minyon quandong (Elaeocarpus sedentarius).
Collectively covering approximately 5,900 hectares of land managed for
the purposes of wildlife conservation, these WLT sanctuaries overlapped
with sites for 120 species listed as threatened under the NSW Threatened
Species Conservation Act 1995 at a total
of 152 separate locations. While they may
not be directly involved with the NSW
Government’s Saving Our Species projects,
the numerous WLT members significantly contribute to the recovery
of the threatened species involved through the protection and
conservation management of large amounts of proximal habitat.
Connectivity: Joining the dots along the Great Eastern RangesThe Great Eastern Ranges (GER) initiative aims to bring people and
organisations together to protect, link and restore healthy habitats over
a 3,600 kilometre corridor running from western Victoria through to far
north Queensland. The program is based on the principles of connectivity
conservation and focuses on creating linkages between protected areas
and other core habitats through the restoration and retention of
existing vegetation.
The Wildlife Land Trust has been a National Partner of the GER for
several years, with WLT member sanctuaries acting as important refuges
for native flora and fauna and increasing connectivity between land
represented under the National Reserve System along the east coast.
Threatened species and biodiversity cannot be conserved by the public
reserve system alone, with even the largest protected areas acting as
‘islands’ of habitat surrounded by lands managed for agriculture, industry
or human settlement. The support of private landholders is needed to
conserve and manage identified gaps in public reserve connectivity,
and WLT sanctuaries provide the functional links between protected
areas required throughout the GER corridor.
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
33
•WLT sanctuary within SOS site •WLT sanctuary
■ SOS site with WLT presence ■ SOS site
Map 1. SOS sites
WLT member sanctuaries overlapwith 120 sites for listed NSWthreatened species
A strong presence of landholders who manage their properties for
conservation purposes within the boundaries of the Great Eastern
Ranges are united through their WLT membership. The distribution of
WLT sanctuary owners is closely aligned to the GER, with 227 of the WLT’s
current 380 Australian member sanctuaries2 (59.7%) inside the corridor,
providing linkages through the preservation and management of 27,900
hectares of habitat for wildlife species, including threatened examples
such as the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus), koala
(Phascolarctos cinereus), sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps) and glossy
black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami). 117 of these properties
(11,250 hectares) are in the GER’s core state of NSW, 89 (16,050 hectares)
in Queensland, and the remaining 21 (600 hectares) in Victoria.
HSI and the WLT further contribute to the protection of threatened
species in the GER corridor through Threatened Ecological Community
(TEC) listings (for more, see page 26). We are responsible for nominating
dozens of TEC listings within the bounds of the GER under the Federal
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the
New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, with WLT
member sanctuary presence contributing to the preservation of the listed
habitats in combination with the additional legislative protection gained.
Biodiversity: Member presence in Global HotspotsBritish biologist Professor Norman Myers introduced the concept of
biodiversity hotspots in 1988 as a tool to prioritise biodiversity conservation
efforts. They are the places on earth that are richest in biodiversity, but
also the most threatened. At the global scale, Conservation International
has identified 35 biodiversity hotspots which, while representing just
2.3% of the planet’s land surface, collectively support more than half of
the world’s plant species as endemics and approximately 43% of bird,
mammal, reptile and amphibian species. Each of these places is highly
threatened and has lost at least 70% of its original habitat, and two are
in Australia: the Forests of Eastern Australia; and Southwest Australia
hotspots (see page 38).
The Wildlife Land Trust has a sizeable presence in these two areas
identified as international priorities for conservation action, with 245
of the 380 current member sanctuaries (64.5%) protecting habitat
within them. These WLT sanctuaries cover 22,000 hectares of land
34
Map 2. GER presence
■ GER boundary
•WLT sanctuary
•WLT sanctuary within GER
2Although analysis in the chapter was conducted at 380 WLT member sanctuaries, there are now more than 400.
and are essential to the long-term survival of the many threatened and
endemic species that have led to these places being considered of such
international importance.
The Southwest Australia hotspot occupies some 356,717 km², and all
3,200 hectares of the 21 current Western Australian WLT sanctuaries fall
within its bounds. These sanctuaries contribute to the preservation of
habitat for a plethora of threatened species that caused the region to
be recognised as globally significant. Among these are iconic animals
such as the greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis), numbat (Myrmecobius
fasciatus), quokka (Setonix brachyurus), chuditch (Dasyurus geoffroii)
and woylie (Bettongia penicillata ogilbyi),
as well as birdlife including malleefowl
(Leipoa ocellata) and forest red-tailed
(Calyptorhynchus banksii naso), Baudin’s
(Calyptorhynchus baudinii), and Carnaby’s (Calyptorhynchus latirostris)
black cockatoos. WLT sanctuaries in the Southwest Australia hotspot
also provide habitat for the tiny nectar and pollen-feeding honey possum
(Tarsipes rostratus), which is the only member of its Family. With the
impacts of historic clearing for agriculture still occurring and new threats
such as urbanisation adding to pressures on the hotspot’s biodiversity,
threatened species habitat protected by the Western Australian WLT
sanctuaries is vital.
Australia’s other, and the most recently recognised Global Biodiversity
Hotspot, the Forests of Eastern Australia, also has an impressive WLT
presence of 224 sanctuaries covering approximately 18,800 hectares.
About 18% of the land area of the hotspot is under formal protection for
its natural values, however gaps in the protected area network include
regions critical for the conservation of threatened species. Conservation
programs complementary to this formal protection are all the more
important as a result, enhancing connectivity and securing much-
needed habitat.
At least 2,144 floral species found within the Forests of Eastern Australia
hotspot are endemic to it, far exceeding the threshold of 1,500 endemic
species required for recognition of a biodiversity hotspot. The region also
contains 27.7% of the 1,263 plant species listed as threatened under the
EPBC Act, including the Critically Endangered Wollemi pine (Wollemia
nobilis), which is considered a living fossil due to all other members of
its genus thought to have been extinct for more than 2 million years.
WLT member sanctuaries in the WA biodiversityhotspot protect the threatened Baudin’s cockatoo
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
35
Map 3. Biodiversity hotspots
■ Global biodiversity hotspots
•WLT sanctuary
•WLT sanctuary within global biodiversity hotspot
Threatened faunal species that WLT member sanctuaries are known to
provide habitat for within the hotspot include the southern cassowary
(Casuarius casuarius), green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea), northern
quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus), mahogany glider (Petaurus gracilis), spectacled
flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) and Coxen’s fig-parrot (Cyclopsitta
diophthalma coxeni).
Threatened Species and WLT Wildlife RehabilitatorsThe owners of more than 100 Wildlife Land Trust sanctuaries are actively
involved in the care of orphaned or injured wildlife, with the proportion set
to increase with the imminent launch of the WLT Wildlife Rehabilitators
Release Network. While many of the species commonly cared for, such
as eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus), bare-nosed wombats
(Vombatus ursinus) and brush-tailed possums (Trichosurus vulpecula)
are relatively abundant, WLT members also play a key conservation role
through the rehabilitation and release of threatened wildlife.
Among these species are Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii), red-
legged pademelons (Thylogale stigmatica), southern cassowaries
(Casuarius casuarius), mahogany gliders (Petaurus gracilis), spectacled
(Pteropus conspicillatus) and grey-headed (Pteropus poliocephalus)
flying-foxes, and eastern quolls (Dasyurus viverrinus). The sole purpose
of several WLT sanctuaries is to rehabilitate wildlife, including Jenny
Maclean’s Tolga Bat Hospital in northern Queensland which features
world-class facilities and offers a volunteer program for the care of
several bat and flying-fox species.
The biodiversity values of approximately a third of WLT sanctuaries are
also protected in-perpetuity through conservation. To further the protection
level of eligible WLT members interested in binding agreements, HSI has
a Memorandum of Understanding with the NSW Office of Environment
and Heritage which allows HSI staff to assess and prepare permanent
Conservation Agreements. The first two WLT sanctuaries to go through
this process were registered on title as per the NSW National Parks and
Wildlife Act 1974 in 2016.
Restricted Range Species: Southern cassowarySeveral threatened species with restricted ranges benefit particularly
significantly from the efforts of Wildlife Land Trust members and the
efforts of our staff, one of which is the southern cassowary (Casuarius
casuarius). More than a dozen WLT sanctuaries covering several hundred
hectares in the Wet Tropics of Queensland provide habitat for southern
cassowaries, and HSI has additionally financially assisted organisations
such as Rainforest Rescue for the acquisition of cassowary habitat.
Furthermore HSI and WLT staff have successfully lobbied relevant local
councils for simple but highly important southern cassowary conservation
measures such as the installation of speed bumps in known road strike
locations, and have supplied letters of support for member initiatives such
as a cassowary rehabilitation facility at WLT member sanctuary Barrine
Park Nature Refuge. Owners of the sanctuary, Carolyn and Phil Emms,
now run a series of cassowary rehabilitation centres and sanctuaries
through a partnership between the Queensland government and their
organisation Rainforest Reserves Australia, considerably contributing
to the survival of the threatened species.
36
HSI also manages the covenanted 120 hectare Warriwillah Sanctuary.
37
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
threatened species are afforded additional
protection by HSI nominated TECs
280
As discussed in the previous chapter, the Biodiversity Hotspots concept,
first developed by Professor Norman Myers, attempted to identify
geographic regions around the world where exceptional concentrations
of endemic species were under immediate threat of habitat and species
loss due to human activity.
Working with the office of Senator Robert Hill, Federal Minister for
the Environment in 2001, HSI was able to help facilitate the enactment
of the world’s first national biodiversity hotspots policy. The Threatened
Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) under the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) was consequently
directed to identify such national hotspots and, following a TSSC/HSI/
Australian Museum workshop, announced the 15 chosen areas.2
The multi-faceted biodiversity hotspots initiative, significantly expanded
with the help of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC) and the
Australian Democrats, included the establishment of the $36 million
‘Maintaining Australia’s Biodiversity Hotspots’ program. This program
contributed to the purchase of seven high conservation value properties
coveringapproximately1.3millionhectares.Tenmajorstewardshipprograms
were also funded covering some 180,000 hectares and 90 landholders.
Including a small regional component and leveraged monies, the combined
biodiversity hotspots initiative was worth around $125 million, making a
significant contribution to the protection and recovery of threatened
species and their habitats in Australia.
HSI has also helped purchase four other properties in Queensland and
Tasmania containing threatened species and owned and managed by
the AWC, Rainforest Rescue and Rainforest Trust Australia.
The seven sanctuaries that the Commonwealth biodiversity hotspots
program was able to help purchase are listed below. These reserves
provide protection for a substantial number of listed threatened species
across Australia.
Mornington–Marion Downs–Western Australia (AWC) protects
15 threatened species including northern quolls (Dasyurus hallucatus),
gouldian finches (Erythrura gouldiae), purple-crowned fairy-wrens
(western subsp.) (Malurus coronatus coronatus) and red goshawks
(Erythrotriorchia radiatus). It is within the West Kimberley National
Heritage listing, which partially resulted from an HSI nomination and
had its assessment prioritised through HSI presence on the Australian
Heritage Council.
Pungalina–Seven Emus–Northern Territory (AWC) is a refuge
for 20 threatened species including gulf snapping turtles (Elseya
lavarackorum), freshwater sawfish (Pristis microdon), gouldian finches
(Erythrura gouldiae), beach stone-curlews (Esacus magnirostris) red
goshawks (Erythrotriorchis radiatus), green turtles (Chelonia mydas)
and Carpentarian false antechinuses (Carpentarian Pseudantechinus).
Kalamurina–South Australia (AWC) counts elusive night parrots
(Pezoporus occidentalis) and plains wanderers (Pedionomus torquatus)
among its 44 threatened species of flora and fauna.
Brooklyn Holding–North Queensland (AWC) provides protection for
45 threatened plants and 40 threatened animals, including spectacled
flying-foxes (Pteropus conspicillatus), yakka skinks (Egernia rugose)
and masked owls (northern subsp.) (Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli)
which are all listed as vulnerable under national environmental law.
Threatened Species and Biodiversity HotspotsLAURA MUIR1
38
Yourka Station–North Queensland (Bush Heritage Australia) is a
safe haven for two nationally vulnerable bird species: red goshawks
(Erythrotriorchis radiatus) and masked owls (northern subsp.) (Tyto
novaehollandiae kimberli).
Edgbaston Station–North Queensland (Bush Heritage Australia)
is renowned for its protection of species endemic to the spring-fed
pools located there, including redfin blue eyes (Scaturiginichthys
vermeilipinnis) and Edgbaston gobies (Chlamydogobius squamigenus)
which are both nationally threatened fish. To date, fifteen previously
unclassified plant species have been discovered on the property.
Considerable conservation attention was brought to the area through
The community of native species dependent on natural discharge of
groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin, an HSI nominated TEC.
Vale of Belvoir–Tasmania (Tasmanian Land Conservancy)—eight
nationally threatened species have been identified at the reserve to date,
including ptunarra brown butterflies (Oreixenica ptunarra), Tasmanian
devils (Sarcophilus harrisii), spotted-tailed quolls (Dasyurus maculatus),
wedge-tailed eagles (Aquila audax fleayi), grassland paperdaisies
(Leucochrysum albicans var. tricolor) and alpine candles (Stackhousia
pulvinaris).
The Commonwealth biodiversity hotspots program has helped protect AWC’s Mornington-Marion Downs Sanctuary
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
39
1 HSI Project Officer
2Einasleigh and Desert Uplands (Queensland); Brigalow North and South (Queensland and
New South Wales); Border Ranges North and South (Queensland and New South Wales);
Midlands of Tasmania; Victorian Volcanic Plain; South Australia's South-East/ Victoria's South-
West; Mt Lofty/Kangaroo Island (South Australia); Fitzgerald River Ravensthorpe (Western
Australia); Busselton Augusta (Western Australia); Central and Eastern Avon Wheatbelt
(Western Australia); Mount Lesueur-Eneabba (Western Australia); Geraldton to Shark Bay
sand plains (Western Australia); Carnarvon Basin (Western Australia); Hamersley-Pilbara
(Western Australia); North Kimberley (Western Australia).
This publication does not pretend to have a comprehensive answer
to all of our threatened species protection woes. It is quite clear to
all that we need to seriously up the ante on a range of conservation
strategies, for example law reform, vastly increased resource allocation,
significantly improved recovery program design and implementation,
and ultimately broad and binding habitat protection measures.
Following the coming into force of the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), HSI published a national
‘Report Card’ (prepared by Judy Lambert AM in 2000) which assessed
Australia’s implementation of the ‘National Strategy for the Conservation
of Australia’s Biological Diversity’ and found the Commonwealth’s
performance sadly wanting. The Federal Government received a very poor
C minus for “recovery of species and ecological communities threatened
with extinction”. In response to these independent consultant’s findings,
HSI published ‘The Extinction Debt and how to deal with it—Implementing
the National Biodiversity Strategy’ (prepared by Judy Lambert AM, Jane
Elix and Andreas Glanznig in 2001), which contained 80 specific targets
and priority actions relating to the recovery of threatened species and
habitat protection. Most are as relevant today as they were 15 years ago,
and it is sobering to note how many of those basic conservation actions
have never been adopted or implemented by successive
Commonwealth Governments.
Spread throughout this policy document are 235 action recommendations
(primarily intended for the Commonwealth, emphasising the need for
national leadership) that would go some way to improving our long-term
chances for rescuing an increasing list of imperilled species from the brink.
It is our view that the law must play a large part in achieving national
conservation aims.
The following section deals primarily with Commonwealth law reform,
both the immediate and long-term requirements, but also includes a
wide-ranging set of biodiversity conservation actions to complement
legislative evolution:
• Urgent EPBC Act reforms
• Access to the courts under Federal law
• ‘Red light’ protection for critical habitats and ecological communities
• ‘Report Card’ and actions for implementing the National
Biodiversity Strategy
• Bioregional conservation strategies and national priorities
• Next generation environment laws
Commonwealth threatened species programIn 2014, the Commonwealth installed a new Threatened Species
Commissioner, and in 2015 at the Government’s Threatened Species
Summit in Melbourne, the Minister launched the Threatened Species
Strategy and The 2015/16 Action Plan. HSI supported the general intent
and goals of the Strategy and its programs, and the establishment of
the National Environment Science Programme (NESP). The Strategy
and Action Plan primary goals of ‘improved population trajectories by
2020’ for a good number of plants, mammals and birds, and tackling
the feral cat problem are laudable, and we are particularly supportive
of the Commonwealth’s partnerships with the Australian Wildlife
Conservancy and Birdlife Australia. However, by any reasonable
comparison, the response does not match the problem.
At the very least, the Commonwealth should elevate the Commissioner’s
status to First Assistant Secretary level and triple their budget.
Threatened Species ProtectionPOLICY AND PROGRAM DIRECTIONS FOR AUSTRALIA
40
An imbalanced equationMoreover, while we clearly support the intent to increase the impact
of the threatened species program, modest as it was, the other side
of the recovery equation—management of proposed impacts of
new developments referred under the EPBC Act—has been totally
and dangerously inadequate.
Not only has the Federal Government been persisting in the disastrous
proposal of devolving all of its Commonwealth environment powers
(to protect Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) directly
to the states and territories, but existing development approval, conditions
compliance and enforcement procedures have been appalling, with an
offsets policy calamitously applied across the board. The effect of these
is that the Commonwealth is practicing devolution of powers by default.
The Business Council of Australia, with particular goading from the
mining industry, maintain their strong lobby for a “one-stop-shop”
policy, and the Commonwealth has been bending over backwards to
accommodate them. Concurrently the states and territories are eagerly
weakening their own environmental legislative laws, which, inexorably,
will lead towards a recipe for an environmental disaster that Australia
may never recover from.
The following pages are in large part devoted to legislative proposals1
that are reliant upon the maintenance of Commonwealth approval powers
under the EPBC Act and any successive laws. Without such a commitment
to an overriding Commonwealth responsibility and legislative authority,
we will be left with an intractable conservation dilemma.
An immediate startRecommendation: To initiate a long-
term recuperative process, the Federal
Government could confidently begin
today by: utilising the proposals put forward by the Wentworth
Group of Concerned Scientists2 (or a similar legislative formula)
to implement a ‘one-stop-shop’ process under the EPBC Act that
maintains approval powers over MNES; immediately upgrade the
Act, including the incorporation of land clearing and climate change
triggers; provide for full public access to the courts; prioritise the
development and implementation of enforceable Threat Abatement
Plans for land clearing and climate change adaptation; allocate
$200 million per annum (minimum) for recovery planning action
(we had sought $50 million in 2001); and urgently review national
recovery planning procedures through a transparent and vigorous
public evaluation process.
These actions must inevitably involve the Commonwealth applying
significant pressure on the states and territories to strengthen their own
species conservation programs.
The Commonwealth must allocate aminimum of $200 million per annumfor species recovery planning
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
41
1 A 2016 scientific review by the U.S Centre for Biological Diversity has shown how strong
legislation backed by adequate resources and strong implementation can facilitate species
recovery. The report: ‘A Wild Success: A Systematic Review of Bird Recovery Under the
Endangered Species Act’ indicated that some “85 percent of bird populations in the continental
United States increased while protected under the Act”. The report noted that the “Endangered
Species Act is the world’s strongest law protecting animals and plants on the brink of extinction.”
It is an Act that Australia should strive to emulate.
2Statement on Changes to Commonwealth Powers to Protect Australia’s Environment.
Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, September, 2012.
The subsequent step is the development of ‘next-generation environment
laws’ that should rival the power of the US Endangered Species Act in
protecting Australian threatened species and habitats.
The Australia Labor Party and the Australian Greens have already made
public commitments to pursuing the majority of these goals. If the
present Coalition Government does not undertake a similar commitment,
then they will assuredly go down in history as the Government that was
solely responsible for dismantling a national environmental legislative
and management system that has been evolving since Gough Whitlam’s
landmark conservation laws passed through the Parliament in the
early 1970s.
HSI next stepsWhile pursuing the Commonwealth to implement appropriate policy
and law, HSI will be working with the EDO NSW in developing specific
EPBC Act drafting instructions for the threatened species, communities
and critical habitat provisions outlined in the proposed amendments in
the following sections, and drafting ‘next generation environment laws’
that identify specific threatened species and critical habitat provisions.
We have also embarked on the larger exercise of drafting a full ‘next
generation law’ model with a focus on key biodiversity conservation
provisions, access to the courts and the manner in which conservation
treaties are implemented. We plan to feed this work into a bigger
package of proposals through our membership of the Places You Love
(PYL) alliance (of which we are a founding member) and the ongoing
work of the PYL’s Australian Panel of Experts on Environmental Law.
HSI will also be seeking access to the courts, primarily using the EPBC
Act, looking at potential matters relating to flying-fox dispersals; the
placement of shark drumlines in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; the
legality of shark nets in NSW; pursuing Japanese whalers for their Federal
Court imposed $1 million fine; halting the destruction of waterfowl in NSW;
reducing seabird bycatch in trawling; protecting little penguin habitat
and identifying test cases for the protection of listed Threatened
Ecological Communities.
42
the hooded robin occurs on seven listed ecosystems
nominated by HSI
Seven
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
43
The problemFor the last 5 years Australia’s environmental policy around the EPBC
Act has foundered, for no substantive policy gain. The former Abbott
Government’s EPBC reform agenda—to hand over Federal environmental
approvals to the states—has dominated the narrative. This so-called ‘one
stopshop’(actuallyeight jurisdictionstryingtodotheCommonwealth’s job)
has become complex and controversial, with no clear public benefit.
As the most recent State of the Environment Report (2011) concluded:
Our environment is a national issue requiring national leadership and
action at all levels…The prognosis for the environment at a national level
is highly dependent on how seriously the Australian Government takes
its leadership role.
The solutionThis series of briefing papers seeks a circuit breaker to the negative
trajectory of national environment policy. It sets out the key amendments
to the EPBC Act, drawing on several balanced recommendations of the
10-year Independent Review of the Act in 2009 (Hawke Report). Enacting
this series of reforms would demonstrate good faith in restoring national
environmental policy to an even keel, improve efficacy and accountability,
and ready Australia’s environment and economy for inevitable change.
EPBC Act reform: Priority Legislative AmendmentsThis briefing paper proposes 10 priority reforms to support improved
environmental effectiveness and decision making under national
environmental law (the EPBC Act):
1) Retain Federal approval powers over national impacts
2) National Environment Commission
3) Better strategic environmental assessment: maintain or improve outcomes
4) New trigger—major greenhouse emitting activities
5) New trigger—ecosystems of national significance
6) New trigger—national reserve system areas
7) New trigger—major land-clearing that threatens biodiversity
8) Protecting ‘vulnerable’ ecological communities under existing triggers
9) Protecting threatened species, ecological communities and critical habitat
10) Rectify oversight of Regional Forest Agreements
Publisher’s note: In the second half of 2015, HSI asked EDO NSW to “recommendkeyreformstoimprovetheEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity ConservationAct 1999 (EPBC Act). In particular:
1) Proposals for a set of priority amendments to the EPBC Act
2) Suggestions for improved EPBC provisions to significantly strengthenprotection for listed species and threatened ecological communities
3) A stand-alone briefing on access to the courts and related issues.”
This section deals with the first two issues, with the third addressed in thefollowing section. The proposed amendments are not meant to be acomprehensive overview of all required EPBC Act improvements, but a set of priority amendments designed to significantly improve the Act through an interim amendment Bill.
Prior to the most recent Federal election (these proposals having been sentto all relevant political parties) HSI received commitments from the AustralianLabor Party and the Australian Greens Party to facilitate an amendment Bill,should they be in a position to do so after the election. The text below directlyreflects EDO’s written legal advice to HSI.
EPBC Act Amendments—Protecting the National EnvironmentPRIORITY EPBC ACT AMENDMENTSBRIEFING PAPER by NARI SAHUKAR*
44
*Senior Policy and Law Reform Solicitor, EDO NSW
XXX
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
45
Recommendation 1 Repeal EPBC Act provisions allowing Federalapprovals to be handed to the states. The ‘one-stop shop’ reformsmust not hand over approval powers under the Act. Opportunities toimprove national environmental law efficiency and effectiveness include:
• clarifying the Act’s objects to focus on Ecologically SustainableDevelopment (ESD) and improving the clarity of drafting;
• moving towards a single Federal-state threatened species listingprocess;
• assessment bilateral agreements to accredit equivalent impactassessment laws;
• reducing unnecessary project referrals via better guidance toproponents;
• improving Australia’s capacity for robust strategic environmentalassessments, to address cumulative impacts and maintain orimprove environmental outcomes; and
• reforming and simplifying nomination processes to list species and other Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES).
Recommendation 2 Establish a statutory National EnvironmentCommission, responsible for advisory and oversight functions. The Commission would report to the Environment Minister or theParliament, have its own staff, and be independent of departmentalor ministerial direction.
Recommendation 3 Make EPBC strategic assessment moresubstantial and robust, including by:
• amending the Act to improve information requirements;
• requiring activities to achieve objective environmental outcomes such as a ‘maintain or improve’ environmental outcomes test;
• requiring cumulative impacts of past, present and future activitiesbe considered;
• revoking the accreditation of the National Offshore Petroleum Safetyand Emergency Management Authority (NOPSEMA) to approvesignificant impacts on MNES, or at a minimum providing a ministerial‘call-in’ assessment and decision-making power;
• improving transparency, community confidence and publicengagement; and
• ensuring robust oversight via new legislated performance audit and ‘call-in’ powers.
Recommendation 4 (i) Enact a new EPBC Act trigger in Part 3 torequire Federal approval of projects with major greenhouse pollutionfootprints (e.g. over 250,000 to 500,000t CO2-e); and (ii) Insert arequirement to consider climate change mitigation and adaptationopportunities as part of strategic assessments and regional planningprocesses.
Recommendation 5 Enact provisions for Ecosystems of NationalSignificance to be listed under the EPBC Act (including a publicnomination process), and a new trigger in Part 3 to require Federalapproval of projects that may have significant impacts on them. The amendments should include an initial list of ecosystems forpriority protection.
Recommendation 6 Enact a new trigger to require Federal approvalof activities that may have significant impacts on areas under theNational Reserve System (including state-based national parks) andother listed protected areas (such as private covenanted land).
Recommendation 7 Enact a new trigger to require Federal approvalof significant land clearing. This would assess three things: activitiesover a certain scale; any clearing of threatened species habitat (or at aminimum, critical habitat); and an additional list of scheduled activities.
Recommendation 8 Amend the EPBC Act to include vulnerableecological communities as a matter of national environmentalsignificance protected under sections 18-18A.
Recommendation 9 Amend the EPBC Act to include a package ofmeasures to strengthen protections for threatened species, ecologicalcommunities and their habitats, including specific measures tostrengthen critical habitat protection. (See recommendation below.)
Recommendation 10 Amend the EPBC Act so that the EnvironmentMinister must apply the full protection of the Act if the review of aRegional Forest Agreement (RFA) has not occurred in the specifiedtimeframe; or indicates serious non-performance; or information isinadequate.
1. Retain Federal approval powers over national impactsThe Federal Environment Minister must retain the power to reject or
approve (with conditions) significant impacts on Matters of National
Environmental Significance (MNES).1 This is consistent with Australia’s
international obligations and community expectations of the Federal
Government’s role. The former Abbott Government’s controversial policy
to hand over approval decisions to state and territory governments must
therefore be abandoned.
The Environment Minister should not outsource key responsibilities.
There are significant problems with handing over approval powers,
and efficiencies can be gained elsewhere (see below).
The Environment Department already has new or revised assessment
bilateral agreements in place with all states and territories (states).
These permit the Federal Minister to rely on state impact assessment
laws and processes.
Dropping the further stage of approval bilateral agreements need not
necessarily affect existing assessment bilateral agreements. However,
it is crucial that:
(i) state laws are amended to require equivalent assessment and
public scrutiny; and
(ii) the Commonwealth retains the power to approve or refuse
national impacts.
Problems with Approval Bilateral Agreements
Approval bilateral agreements would switch off the EPBC Act for
assessment, approval and enforcement for activities with significant
impacts on MNES.
Significant impacts on MNES would be left to state governments to
assess and approve.2 State planning agencies and departments (or even
local councils3) would replace oversight from the Federal Environment
Minister and expertise of the Department of Environment.
State governments are not elected or expected to represent the
national interest. Nor should they (or local governments) be put in
charge of Australia’s international obligations. The one-stop shop also
raises significant conflicts of interest, where state governments or their
agencies propose the projects they will be approving, or stand to
benefit from royalties etc.4
46
1 These MNES include (among others):
• World Heritage Areas like the Great Barrier Reef, Daintree Rainforest, Uluru, NSW BlueMountains and Tasmanian Wilderness;
• National heritage places, from Fraser Island to the Australian War Memorial;
• Nationally threatened species and communities, and migratory species including seabirds and whales;
• Internationally-protected wetlands (Ramsar Convention), and
• Nuclear actions including uranium mines.
2 Only the following EPBC matters may remain in Federal hands: Commonwealth lands and
marine areas in some jurisdictions (but not the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park), impacts of coal
and gas projects on rivers, wetlands and groundwater (‘water trigger’ impacts), and emergency
project ‘call-in’ powers.
3 See further EDO NSW briefing note on the EPBC Amendment (Bilateral Agreement
Implementation) Bill 2014.
4 An example is the Traveston Crossing Dam proposal on the Mary River, proposed and
recommended for approval by Queensland Government authorities but rejected by the Federal
Environment Minister in 2009.
Efficiency gains lie elsewhere
Project impact assessment and approval processes should be efficient,
effective and properly resourced. Yet major projects are often inherently
complex and their environmental impacts are significant. Unlike many
state laws, the EPBC Act includes statutory timeframes for approval
decisions. For this and other reasons delegating the approval stage will
not actually save much time or money.5
Opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of national
environmental laws lie elsewhere (see examples below). The Hawke
Report identified many of these opportunities, as have other expert
bodies such as the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists’ 2012
Statement on Changes to Commonwealth Powers to Protect
Australia’s Environment.6
Recommendation 1 Repeal EPBC Act provisions allowing Federalapprovals to be handed to the states.7 The Australian Governmentmust not hand over approval powers under the Act.
Opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness lie elsewhere.For example:
• clarifying the Act’s objects to focus on ESD and improving theclarity of drafting;8
• moving towards a single Federal-state threatened species listing process;
• assessment bilateral agreements to accredit equivalent impactassessment laws;
• reducing unnecessary project referrals via better guidance toproponents;
• improving Australia’s capacity for robust strategic environmentalassessments and regional plans—to create efficiencies, addresscumulative impacts and maintain or improve environmentaloutcomes; and
• reforming and simplifying nomination processes to list speciesand other MNES.
The Commonwealth must neverhand-over project approval powersto the states and territories
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
47
5 Environment Department estimates of ‘savings’ from the one-stop shop (2014) are flawed. The
report itself noted various uncertainties that made calculation difficult and presumably relied
on proponent valuation of projects’ net present value. The estimates explicitly did not consider:
• that states will require additional time and resourcing to take on Federal responsibilities
of assessment, approval and enforcement (explicit assumptions included no additional
assessment/approval time),
• the benefits of Federal oversight, economic or otherwise (such as arms-length decision
making, environmental stringency of conditions and greater public trust), or
• ongoing costs of uncertainty, administration and implementation of the hand-over.
6 See: http://wentworthgroup.org/2012/09/statement-on-changes-to-commonwealth-powers-
to-protect-australias- environment/2012/.
7 For example, repeal s. 46 and related provisions, whilst retaining power in s. 47 to accredit
equivalent state assessment laws.
8 The Act’s objects should be amended to reflect Hawke Report recommendations 1-3.
2. National Environment CommissionSeveral recent inquiries have recommended a National Environment
Commission to provide independent advice and strategic oversight on
national environmental issues.
A National Environment Commission could perform a range of important
functions, including:
• give expert advice to the Environment Minister on national policypriorities;9
• consult and report to Parliament on the State of the Environmentevery two years;10
• oversee compliance and audits of state/territory assessment bilateralagreements;
• advise on the adequacy of strategic assessment proposals (underPart 12 of the Act);
• include a specialist forum to expedite merit reviews of certain EPBCAct decisions; and
• work closely with governments to deliver National EnvironmentAccounts by 2020.11
In 2009 the Hawke Report recommended establishing a National
Environment Commission, and canvassed several potential models and
roles it could fulfil.12
In 2012 the Government established a National Sustainability Council to
advise on social, economic and environmental sustainability challenges. Its
inaugural Sustainable Australia Report 2013 began valuable conversations
and brought together data on ageing, inequality, cities, economy and
environment.13 Initially slated to report every 2 years, the Council was
disbanded in November 2013.
In 2013 the Productivity Commission proposed that a Federal Environment
Protection Agency (EPA) could be considered, with the aim of separating
departmental policy-making functions from EPA enforcement functions.
Also in 2013 a Senate Environment Committee report reiterated the
Hawke Report proposal for a National Environment Commission.14 The
Committee majority also recommended not to proceed with approval
bilateral agreements.
All of these proposals reflect the need for greater institutional capacity
and independence in national environmental matters. This includes robust
advice and oversight at arms-length from the government of the day
and a platform for informed debate on sustainability.
48
9 The Commission would fill an important gap, and could incorporate existing bodies under the
EPBC Act:
• Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal and CSG (water trigger);
• Biodiversity Scientific Advisory Committee;
• Australian Heritage Council;
• Indigenous Advisory Committee;
• Threatened Species Commissioner (currently non-statutory), and
• the former National Sustainability Council.
10 EPBC Act s 516B currently requires the Minister to commission State of Environment reports
every 5 years.
11Consistent with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (target 2) and building on the work of the ABS/BOM.
12 Hawke et al., Report of the Independent Review of the EPBC Act (2009), recommendation 71.
13 See: https://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/publications/sustainable-australia-report-
2013-conversations-future.
14 Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Report into Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Retaining Federal Approval Powers) Bill, March 2013,
recommendation 4: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/
Environment_and_Communications/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/epbcfederalpowers/
report/index.
Expert environmental advisory bodies exist in comparable jurisdictions
including New Zealand, UK, US and Victoria.15 Meanwhile, Australia’s
institutional capacity for dealing with complex environmental and
economic challenges and opportunities has been eroded.16
3. Better strategic environmental assessment: maintainor improve outcomesAmendments are urgently needed to strengthen the rigour of the
strategic assessment processes under Part 10 of the EPBC Act.
Current plans to increase the use of strategic assessments emphasise
‘streamlining’ of project approvals, without the additional safeguards
recommended in the Hawke Report. This
is significant because of the practical, long-
term effects of strategic assessments,
which switch off Federal approvals for
activities under an accredited policy or in a geographic area.
We therefore support full implementation of Hawke recommendation 6
to make EPBC Act strategic assessment processes ‘more substantial
and robust’.
In our view, strategic (environmental) assessment must be underpinned
by rigorous, objective and transparent legislative requirements to deliver
good process, implementation and outcomes. To be specific, better
strategic assessment should include:
• strong legislative standards and science-based tools;
• strong decision making criteria, including a ‘maintain or improve’
environmental outcomes test (such as for biodiversity, water quality,
vegetation, carbon storage);
• requiring cumulative impacts of past, present and future activities
to be considered;
• comprehensive and accurate mapping and data;
• undertaking strategic assessment at the earliest possible stage;
• requiring alternative scenarios to be considered;
• ground-truthing of landscape-scale assessment;
• mandating public participation at all stages; and
• strategic assessment complementing, not replacing, site-level
assessment.
Recommendation 2 Establish a statutory National EnvironmentCommission, responsible for advisory and oversight functions.The Commission would report to the Environment Minister or theParliament, have its own staff, and be independent of departmentalor ministerial direction.
Improved laws must includecomprehensive and accuratemapping data
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
49
15 New Zealand’s Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment reports on issues referred by
Parliament, or of her own volition. The United Kingdom Natural Capital Advisory Committee
advises government on protecting environmental assets and ecosystem services. The United
States Council on Environmental Quality coordinates Federal agencies’ environmental action,
and issues directives and guidelines under the National Environmental Protection Act. Victoria’s
Commissioner for Environment and Sustainability reports and advises on the state of
Victoria’s environment.
16 For example, abolition of the National Water Commission, National Sustainability Council and
Climate Commission; abolishing the Grants to Voluntary Environment, Sustainability and
Heritage Organisations, and community legal centre funding to Environmental Defenders’
Offices; and funding cuts to CSIRO and Landcare.
Strategic assessments to date have involved a range of inadequacies,
including the inadequate assessment of ecological impacts in the
Melbourne Urban Growth Boundary, inadequate offset standards for the
Western Sydney Growth Centres, and the hasty accreditation, limited
transparency, external oversight and environmental criteria of NOPSEMA.
These examples provide lessons for future improvements including on
transparency of process, implementation and outcomes.17
4. New trigger—major greenhouse emitting activitiesThe absence of a greenhouse trigger remains a major gap in the
national environmental law. A national trigger is important because
state laws do not set carbon budgets, nor do they cap or forecast
cumulative emissions from proposed development.
Most sources of Australia’s emissions will require some form of
development approval.19 Yet most state laws do not specifically require
decision-makers to take into account a project’s impacts on climate
change, minimise these impacts, or plan for climate adaptation.
States continue to defer responsibility for climate mitigation to the
Commonwealth. However, at present, EPBC Act assessment and
conditions related to climate change can only be incidental to protecting
listed matters, such as threatened species or world heritage areas.
When Environment Minister Robert Hill introduced the EPBC Bill in 1998,
he noted his government’s commitment to negotiate a greenhouse
Recommendation 3 Make EPBC strategic assessment ‘moresubstantial and robust’ (Hawke 2009, recommendation 6),including by:
• amending the Act to improve information requirements;
• requiring activities to achieve objective environmental outcomessuch as a ‘maintain or improve’ environmental outcomes test;
• requiring cumulative impacts of past, present and future activitiesbe considered;
• revoking accreditation of NOPSEMA to approve significantimpacts on MNES, or at a minimum providing a ministerial ‘call-in’power for assessment and decision-making;
• improving community confidence and public engagement; and
• ensuring robust oversight via new legal performance audit and‘call-in’ powers.18
50
17 For example EDOs of Australia made a submission opposing NOPSEMA accreditation and
listing 20 concerns: Submission on streamlining of environmental approvals for offshore
petroleum, PDF (20 December 2013). See also EDO NSW, http://www.edonsw.org.au/
petroleum_exploration_documents_released_for_public_scrutiny. See further: EDOs of
Australia Submission on ‘Our Cities…’ Discussion Paper (2011), p 7 (Melbourne Urban Growth
Boundary) at http://www.edo.org.au/development1; EDO NSW, Submission on the proposed
Sydney Growth Centres Strategic Assessment (2010), http://www.edonsw.org.au/planning_
development_heritage_policy.
18 On audit powers see Hawke rec 4(5): creation of a Commonwealth monitoring, performance
audit and oversight power to ensure that any process accredited achieves the outcomes it
claims to accomplish.
19 For example, activities such as land-clearing, mining, new power stations and major transport
infrastructure.
trigger once the Act was passed.20 This is consistent with the
Commonwealth’s interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions under
the 1998 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Heads of Agreement.
The Hawke Report proposed an interim greenhouse trigger until an
economy-wide carbon price was in place, and a requirement for strategic-
level mitigation (recommendation 10).
With the Paris Conference and Australia’s 2030 emission reduction
targets, a new opportunity emerges to enact a greenhouse trigger.
Australia will need to renew its approach to a national carbon budget
that is consistent with avoiding 2 degrees warming, taking into account
Direct Action policy expenditures to date.
A new trigger would recognise the need to link Australia’s carbon budget,
accounting processes and targets with development conditions imposed
under the EPBC Act.21 The trigger could be set to assess, approve or
reject projects with major greenhouse footprints (250,000 to 500,000t-
plus CO2-e) and apply conditions. This should include ‘scope 3’ emissions
that come from the project but occur overseas, even if scope 3 emissions
don’t form part of the national carbon budget.
5. New trigger—ecosystems of national significanceThe need to shift focus beyond individual
species to landscape-scale biodiversity
protection is widely recognised. This includes a need to protect
ecosystems of national significance—with importance for species
richness, climate refuge and adaptation, but limited protection.
Currently the EPBC Act aims to conserve biodiversity through public
reserve management, listing species, and listing ecological communities23
—unique groupings of interdependent plant and animal species—that
are nationally threatened with extinction. By contrast, ecosystems include
the interaction of species and communities with physical or abiotic
features.24 Ecosystems are only protected indirectly via other triggers,
such as protected heritage places, Ramsar wetlands or listed threatened
species and ecological communities.
Recommendation 4:
(i) Enact a new EPBC Act trigger in Part 3 to require Federalapproval of projects with major greenhouse pollution footprints(such as 250,000 to 500,000t+ CO2-e); and
(ii)Insert a requirement to consider climate change mitigation andadaptation opportunities as part of strategic assessments andregional planning processes.22
The Commonwealth shouldimmediately add a new EPBC Act‘climate change’ trigger
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
51
20Senate Hansard, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999],
Second Reading Speech, 22 June 1999, at 5990.
21 For example, the Climate Change Authority (2012) recommended that Australia adopt a
national emissions budget of 10.1 billion tonnes CO2-e for the period 2013 to 2050.
22 Both arms of this recommendation are consistent with Hawke Report recommendation 10.
The second arm refers to strategic assessments under Part 10 and (bio)regional plans under
Part 12 of the Act.
23 The Act defines ecological community as ‘the extent in nature in the Australian jurisdiction
of an assemblage of native species that: (a) inhabits a particular area in nature; and (b) meets
the additional criteria specified in the regulations (if any) made for the purposes of this
definition.’ (EPBC Act s. 528.)
24 The Act defines ecosystem as ‘a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism
communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit.’ (EPBC Act s. 528).
The Hawke Report proposed to:
…include ‘ecosystems of national significance’ as a new matter of
national environmental significance. The ‘matter protected’ should
be the ecological character of a listed ecosystem.25
A new listing category and trigger to protect ecosystems of national
significance would enable the protection of important ecosystems
because of their significant ecological character—even before they are
threatened. Activities with a significant impact on these ecosystems
would require assessment and approval under the Act.
Landscape-scale approaches shift the focus from emergency management
of individual species to holistic landscape health, resilience and climate-
readiness. This is consistent with Australia’s Biodiversity Strategy 2010–30,
the Convention on Biological Diversity and the National Reserve System
(NRS, see below). We note the recent Paris climate agreement recognised
the need to build adaptive capacity and resilience in ecological systems.26
An ecosystems trigger would fill a significant policy gap identified in the
Act’s 10-year review. This recognises the benefits of protecting ‘natural
capital’ to support resilient landscapes, ecosystem functions and services,
which in turn benefit society and the economy. The trigger would also
help to identify ecological needs in a changing climate, and promote
efficient expenditure by governments, land managers and developers.
The Hawke Report proposed specific criteria for listing ecosystems of
national significance. These are adapted from existing NRS and Ramsar
approaches. Listing criteria would include high biodiversity and habitat
values, critical ecosystem functions,27 connectivity between ecosystems,
and resilience-building to landscape threats such as climate change.
Hawke proposed giving priority to ecosystems that are under-
represented in existing protection frameworks. For example, wetlands
of national significance are not eligible for Ramsar listing but, like
National Heritage places, deserve protection under the Act.
6. New trigger—National Reserve System areasA new trigger for areas under the NRS would provide Federal protection
against significant impacts on national parks and other important
protected areas. At a minimum, this trigger should apply to NRS areas
designated as strict nature reserves, wilderness areas and national parks
(IUCN Categories Ia, Ib and II28), as well as private conservation-
covenanted lands (about 1,200 such lands are currently in the NRS).
Recommendation 5 Enact provisions for Ecosystems of NationalSignificance to be listed under the EPBC Act (including a publicnomination process), and a new trigger in Part 3 to require Federalapproval of projects that may have significant impacts on theirecological character. The amendments should include specificcriteria for listing, and an initial list of ecosystems for priorityprotection (e.g. nationally significant wetlands).
52
25 Hawke Report (2009), recommendation 8. Ecological character refers to the combination
of an ecosystem’s components, processes, benefits and services (see e.g. Ramsar Convention
2005a, Resolution IX.1 Annex A).
26 For example, see Article 7, 7.9 (e).
27 Such functions and services include food production, water purification, salinity control and
climate adaptation.
28 On IUCN categories see further the Department of Environment:
https://www.environment.gov.au/node/20957.
The Commonwealth manages 6 national parks (and 59 marine reserves),29
but most national parks are state-based.
As the Department of Environment notes:30
The National Reserve System is Australia’s network of protected
areas… [and] the nation’s natural safety net against our biggest
environmental challenges…
It is made up of Commonwealth, state and territory reserves,
Indigenous lands and protected areas run by non-profit conservation
organisations, through to ecosystems protected by farmers on their
private working properties.
The NRS is made up of over 10,000 protected areas and over 18% of the
continent. Management responsibility is divided between:31
• Commonwealth, state and territory Governments (>47%);
• Indigenous Protected Areas (40%);
• joint management (≈7%); and
• private management (≈5%).
Alpine National Park and other protected areas that rely on state-based
protection are under threat, as recent examples show including the former
Victorian Government’s attempts to allow grazing in alpine national parks;
and pressure in other states to expand shooting, grazing and horse-riding
in protected areas, often without proper consideration of ecological
impacts or incompatible uses. However, Federal protection of these
areas is only indirect, via existing triggers.
7. New trigger—major land-clearing that threatens biodiversityClearing of native vegetation has a range of well recognised and serious
consequences. These include destruction of biodiversity habitat,
degradation of soil, degradation of water quality, increased salinity,
release of greenhouse gas emissions, and adverse effects on ecosystem
services and broader catchment health. Successive State of the
Environment Reports highlight this threat32 and land clearing has
accelerated in some areas since 2011.33
Recommendation 6 Enact a new trigger to require Federal approvalof activities that may have significant impacts on National ReserveSystem and other protected areas. This should include at a minimum:
• strict nature reserves;
• wilderness areas;
• national parks (including where state-managed); and
• private conservation-covenanted lands.
The Commonwealth must enacta new ‘land clearing’ triggerunder the EPBC Act
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
53
31 Department of Environment, accessed Dec. 2015: www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/about-
nrs/ownership.
32 The SOE Report 2001 identified land clearing the single biggest threat to wildlife in Australia.
The SOE Report 2006 found that the ‘loss of native vegetation continues to be one of the
greatest threats to Australia’s biodiversity’. The SOE Report 2011 found that: ‘Threats to our
soil, including acidification, erosion and the loss of soil carbon, will increasingly affect Australia’s
agriculture unless carefully managed.’
33 Land clearing in Queensland increased from 91,690 ha in 2010-11, to 153,640 ha in 2011-12, and
to 296,324ha by 2013-14, resulting in significant levels of atmospheric CO2 emissions. Source:
Queensland Government, Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATS) Reports, Land cover
change in Queensland in 2012-14 and Land cover change in Queensland in 2011-12. The increase
to 2013-14 coincided with the former Newman Government’s amendments to the Vegetation
Management Act, which removed some clearing restrictions and introduced self-assessable
clearing codes and permits for ‘high-value agriculture’.
29 On Commonwealth national parks see: Department of Environment: www.environment.gov.au/
topics/national-parks. Commonwealth reserves are managed under Part 15 Division 4 of the
EPBC Act. Many works cannot be carried out in a Commonwealth reserve unless permitted
by a management plan (s 353). Activities on ‘Commonwealth land’ with a significant impact
on the environment require approval under Part 3 (ss 26-27A).
30 Department of Environment, accessed Dec. 2015: https://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs.
A comprehensive Federal land clearing trigger would ensure that
Federal efforts to preserve national biodiversity, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and landscape-scale conservation are not undermined by a
constantly changing patchwork of state land clearing laws and policies.
State and territory laws have limited effectiveness and strategic oversight
over land clearing. Significant levels of clearing are still lawful; illegal
clearing continues, with limited resourcing for enforcement; and laws
are being weakened further in some states. For example, land clearing
rates in Queensland nearly doubled from 2012 to 2014 due to legal
rollbacks, with impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage.34 NSW is
under similar pressure to expand clearing exceptions and self-assessment
in its 2015-16 reforms.35
A land clearing trigger in the EPBC Act could include 3 elements
(based on scale, habitat and activity):
• a trigger for clearing a certain scale of native vegetation in any two
year period (for example, 100+ ha);
• a trigger for clearing any native vegetation that is habitat for listed
threatened species or ecological communities (or at a minimum,
listed critical habitat); and
• a schedule of activities that would trigger the Act regardless of the scale
of clearing proposed (for example, major coastal resort developments).
In addition, we note that a key barrier to the adequate assessment of
major land clearing proposals across Australia is the current exemption
for logging in areas under Regional Forest Agreements. The RFA process
continues to be a significant abdication of Federal responsibilities. Reforms
related to RFAs are proposed at recommendation 10 below.
Recommendation 7 Enact a new trigger to require Federal approvalof significant land clearing. This would assess three things:
• activities over a certain scale;
• any clearing of threatened species habitat (or at a minimum,critical habitat); and
• an additional list of scheduled activities with known landclearing impacts.
54
34 Ibid. For example, SLATS data from the Queensland Government in 2008, shows Queensland
still has extensive rates of clearing with 375,000 hectares being cleared during 2005-2006:
Land Cover Change in Queensland 2005-2006. Statewide Landcover and Trees Study Report,
Department of Natural Resources and Water.
35 See NSW Independent Biodiversity Legislation Review Panel Final Report, December 2014 at:
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/biodiversitylegislation/review.htm.
8. Protecting ‘vulnerable’ ecological communities underexisting triggersA central function of the EPBC Act is to require approval of significant
impacts to threatened species and ecological communities. Sections
18-18A include offences to protect:
• species that are vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered and
extinct in the wild; and
• ecological communities that are endangered and critically endangered.
The Government notes that: ‘The aim of listing is to prevent further
decline and to promote recovery…’ 36 Yet while ecological communities
can be (and are) listed as vulnerable under the Act, the current offence
provisions do not in fact protect them from harm.37
Protecting vulnerable ecological communities is the missing piece in
these offence provisions. This was identified for correction in the Hawke
Report (recommendation 14).
An ecological community is considered vulnerable if it is facing a high
risk of extinction in the wild in the medium–term future (indicative
timeframe being the next 50 years).38 Existing pressures combined with
accelerating climate change increase the need to protect them.
9. Protecting threatened species,ecological communities andcritical habitatA headline finding of Australia’s State
of the Environment 2011 Report was that: ‘Our unique biodiversity is in
decline, and new approaches will be needed to prevent accelerating
decline in many species.’
A range of measures is needed to update and strengthen EPBC Act
processes and outcomes to protect threatened species, ecological
communities and their habitats. This includes, but is not limited to,
measures recommended in the Hawke Report. Specific emphasis is
needed on critical habitat to promote climate resilience and avoid
extinctions.
Other jurisdictions have been more proactive in funding and conducting
comprehensive assessments of ecosystems and natural areas for their
values and benefits. An example is the UK’s National Ecosystems
Assessment (2011) and follow-up report (2014).39
It is widely acknowledged that the Act needs an emergency listing
process for newly-discovered species and ecological communities
under significant and imminent threat (Hawke recommendation 16).
Recommendation 8 Amend the EPBC Act to include vulnerableecological communities as Matters of National EnvironmentalSignificance protected from impacts under sections 18-18A.
New approaches are needed toarrest the decline of Australia’sunique biodiversity
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
55
36 Department of Environment:
www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/about.
37 Section 18A(4)(b) specifically exempts vulnerable ecological communities from offences
under s. 18A.
38 See: https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/about.
39 See: http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/.
Such amendments were proposed in a 2011 Private Member’s Bill, and
supported by stakeholders and a Senate Inquiry.40 The Government
planned to introduce similar amendments in 2012, but these have not
come to pass.
There is also a need to reform and simplify the nomination process for
threatened species, ecological communities (and in future, ecosystems
of national significance) to speed up the process and better engage
local communities, indigenous groups and other stakeholders.
Critical habitat protections
Experts acknowledge the benefit of identifying habitat critical to the
survival of threatened species.41
The Act requires the Minister to establish a Register of Critical Habitat
(s. 207A) for threatened species and ecological communities. We support
a central register of critical habitat. However, the provisions in the Act
and Regulations are deficient.42 In particular:
• The Register is a decade out of date (with no new additions since
early 2005);
• The current list contains critical habitat for just five species;43
• Offences for knowingly damaging critical habitat are limited to
Commonwealth areas;
• Identifying critical habitat via (non-mandatory) recovery plans
is insufficient.44
The Hawke Report proposed a requirement to identify critical habitat at
the time of listing threatened species (recommendation 12(1)), including
description and spatial identification. While this is supported, there is
also a need to address deficiencies in identification of critical habitat for
species already listed as threatened with extinction.
We recommend further measures to improve the effectiveness
of biodiversity protections.
56
40 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Emergency Listings) Bill2011. See further Senate Environment Committee report (2012), recommendation 1, at para3.37: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/epbcemergencylistings/report/index.
41 Hawke Report (2009), para 5.14.
42 EPBC Act Part 13 Division 1 (ss 207A-207C); EPBC Regulation 2000, Part 7 Division 7.4(clauses 7.09-7.10).
43 These include albatross habitat on remote islands off Tasmania, black-eared miner habitat inremote South Australia, and one area in the ACT protecting the perennial herb, Gininderrapeppercress. See: https://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicregisterofcriticalhabitat.pl.
44 See EPBC Act, s 270(2)(d).
45 Section 139 currently requires the Minister to ‘have regard to any approved conservationadvice’; but ‘must not act inconsistently with’ other things—recovery plans, threat abatementplans and some international treaty obligations (Convention on Biodiversity, Apia Conventionon Nature in the South Pacific, and CITES).
46 See for example, UK National Ecosystems Assessment (2011 and 2014): http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/.
47 Listing decisions should be added to s 391: where the Minister must take account of theprecautionary principle
48 The Act previously contained such an obligation at section 185 (now repealed):185 Maintaining the lists in up-to-date condition(1) The Minister must take all reasonably practical steps to amend as necessary: (a) the listreferred to in section 178 so that it contains in each category all native species that are eligibleto be, or under subsection 186(3), (4) or (5) can be, included in that category; and (b) the listreferred to in section 181 so that it contains in each category all ecological communities thatare eligible to be included in that category.(2) The Minister must decide whether to amend the list referred to in section 181 to include anecological community that is described as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable ina list that is: (a) kept by: (i) a State; or (ii) a self-governing Territory; or (iii) the body known asthe Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council; and (b) identified bythe Minister by a notice published in the Gazette.
49 See http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/environment-assessments/conservation-agreements; and http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/biodiversity/biodiversity-conservation/conservation-covenants.
The Commonwealth should introducestrong priority and interim amendmentsto the EPBC Act
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
57
Recommendation 9 Amend the EPBC Act to include a package ofmeasures to strengthen protections for threatened species, ecologicalcommunities and their habitats, including specific measures tostrengthen critical habitat protection.
General measures should include the following:
• Amend section 139 of the Act so that the Minister:
– must not approve an action with significant impacts on CriticallyEndangered Ecological Communities; and
– must act consistently with any approved conservation advice forEndangered Ecological Communities (and other listed matters45)in deciding whether to approve a relevant controlled action;
• New provisions for emergency listing of species and ecologicalcommunities;
• Require the Minister to identify, assess and list all nationally-Threatened Ecological Communities (terrestrial and marine) overthe next 5 years—such as via a comprehensive and collaborativeNational Ecosystems Assessment;46
• Apply the precautionary principle to listing decisions for speciesand ecological communities (where there is scientific uncertaintyand threat of serious harm);47
• Require the Minister to maintain lists of threatened species andecological communities in an up-to-date condition;48
• Mandatory development and implementation of recovery plans,including at regional scales where appropriate, and supported bycredible funding options;
• Reform and simplify the public nomination process for listingspecies and ecological communities, taking the pre-2006 modelas the starting point, i.e. Commonwealth must assess all nominations(within a 3 year period);
• New provisions to permit the public nomination of discretepopulations; and
• Decisions not to list species/ecological communities should attractmerits review.
Specific measures to strengthen critical habitat protection shouldinclude the following:
• Clarify that the Minister must not approve significant impacts ordevelopments on critical habitat of Endangered (or CriticallyEndangered) species or ecological communities. The Minister mustinstead seek conservation agreements or covenants with privatelandholders (or relevant government authorities) to protect thecritical habitat of all threatened species and ecological communities;49
• Require that critical habitat (incorporating climate refugia) isidentified at the time a species or community is listed, along withpublished mapping;
• All new critical habitat should be automatically included on theRegister of Critical Habitat, and all habitat should be protected asa MNES;
• Require the Minister to list the critical habitats of all ‘CriticallyEndangered’ species and ecological communities when theamendment Bill is tabled;
• Require the Minister to transfer all existing, identified criticalhabitat information (for all currently listed species and ecologicalcommunities) to the Register within 18 months of the amendmentsbeing passed; and
• Extend the Act’s critical habitat provisions to protect habitatsacross all land tenures (i.e. beyond Commonwealth areas to stateand territory lands and waters).
58
10. Rectify oversight of Regional Forest AgreementsEnvironment groups have long questioned the adequacy, scientific rigour
and compliance oversight of Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs), based
on years of on-ground experience. This is because RFAs controversially
accredit state forestry management processes and ‘switch off’
requirements for EPBC Act assessment, approval and further Federal
oversight. The Hawke Report (recommendations 28-29) noted several
RFA reviews were outstanding.
An example of the inadequacy of state forestry regulations and processes
is that, in NSW:
• there is evidence of systemic regulatory breaches throughout NSW
public forests; The Land and Environment Court described the Forestry
Corporation as showing ‘a pattern of continuing disobedience… or
[at least] a cavalier attitude to compliance’;50
• penalties for some forestry licence offences relating to harming
threatened species are ‘exceedingly low compared to… other
environmental offences’.51 Other licence breaches under the Forestry
Regulation attract penalty notices of as little as $100;
• the Forestry Act 2012 is one of the only environmental laws that
excludes members of the public from bringing civil enforcement
proceedings when the law is broken.
Now is a critical point to assess the adequacy of RFA operations as the
10 state agreements (with Tasmania, Western Australia, Victoria and
NSW) are due for five-yearly reviews. The EPBC Act should be amended
to require that RFAs can only continue if they independently demonstrate
high environmental compliance, continuous improvement and robust
oversight.
Recommendation 10 Amend the EPBC Act so that the EnvironmentMinister must apply the full protection of the Act if the review of aRegional Forest Agreement:
• has not occurred in the specified timeframe; or
• indicates serious non-performance; or
• information is inadequate to demonstrate high levels ofperformance, oversight and continuous improvement inEcologically Sustainable Forest Management.52
50 Justice Pepper, NSW Land and Environment Court, Department of Environment, Climate
Change and Water v Forestry Commission of NSW, 8 June 2011, cited in EDO NSW, If a Tree
Falls: Compliance failures in the public forests of New South Wales (2011), PDF.
51 Justice Pepper, cited in EDO NSW (ibid), p 24.
52 This recommendation is generally consistent with Hawke Report recommendation 28-29.
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
59
and golden bell frog: HSI nominated under theEPBC Act with Greenpeace, it remains
vulnerable to extinction
Green
The problem Despite comprehensive independent review and recommendations for
reform, for the last 5 years Australia’s environmental policy around the
EPBC Act has foundered, for no substantive policy gain. The former
Abbott Government’s EPBC reform agenda—to hand over Federal
environmental approvals to the States—has dominated the narrative.
This so-called ‘one-stop-shop’ (which is actually eight jurisdictions trying
to do the Commonwealth’s job) has become complex and controversial,
with no clear public benefit.
The solution This series of briefing papers seeks a circuit breaker to the negative
trajectory of national environment policy. It sets out a series of key
amendments to the EPBC Act, and draws on several balanced
recommendations of the 10-year Independent Review of the Act in
2009 (Hawke Report).1 Enacting this series of reforms would
demonstrate good faith in restoring national environmental policy to
an even keel, improve efficacy and accountability, and ready Australia’s
environment and economy to respond to challenges and opportunities
of change.
EPBC Act reform: Access to justice, communityengagement and public confidenceOur proposed reforms to the EPBC Act begin with 3 access to justice
mechanisms:
1) public access to the courts via ‘open standing’ for judicial review;
2) merits review for a limited set of key decisions; and
3) public interest proceedings and costs orders.
We make 3 corresponding recommendations and explain their rationale
below. Further background is provided at the end of this paper.
Access to justice improves decision-making,accountability and deters corruptionThe EPBC Act protects Australia’s most iconic natural places, unique
species and communities threatened with extinction. The Australian
public expects strong protections and accountable decisions. Access
to justice is a crucial component of public confidence in environmental
decision-making under the Act.
Australia is also a signatory to several international commitments
promoting legal rights to participate in decision-making processes and
to have access to the courts to ensure accountability.2
EPBC Act Amendments—Protecting the National EnvironmentIMPROVING ACCESS TO JUSTICE, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCEBRIEFING PAPER by NARI SAHUKAR*
60
*Senior Policy and Law Reform Solicitor, EDO NSW
Publisher’s note: In the second half of 2015, HSI asked EDO NSW to “recommendkeyreformstoimprovetheEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity ConservationAct 1999 (EPBC Act). In particular:
1) Proposals for a set of priority amendments to the EPBC Act
2) Suggestions for improved EPBC provisions to significantly strengthenprotection for listed species and threatened ecological communities
3) A stand-alone briefing on access to the courts and related issues.”
This section deals with the third issue above. Prior to the most recent Federalelection (these proposals having been sent to all relevant political parties) HSIreceived commitments from the Australian Labor Party and the AustralianGreens Party to facilitate an amendment Bill, should they be in a position todo so after the election. The text below directly reflects EDO’s written legaladvice to HSI.
1 Chapter 15 of the Hawke Report (2009) deals with review mechanisms and access to courts.
For decades in NSW, environmental and planning laws have provided
‘open standing’ for any person to seek judicial review. The benefits of
these community appeal rights extend far beyond the few cases in which
they are exercised; and ‘floodgates’ concerns have been disproved.3
As further accountability mechanism, the EPBC Act should provide
standing for arms-length merits review of key decisions, as supported
in the Hawke Report.
In NSW, merits review has been available for objectors to high-impact
projects, providing some balance to proponents’ rights. Indeed, ICAC
supports further expansion of third-party (community) merits review in
NSW planning laws. According to ICAC, third party appeal rights provide
‘an important check on executive government’, and reduce the likelihood
of undue favouritism in the development approvals process. By contrast,
the absence of third party appeal rights ‘creates an opportunity for
corrupt conduct to occur’.4
Recommendation 1 Amend the EPBC Act to provide ‘open standing’for judicial review of decisions under the Act and Regulations,so that any person can ensure that decisions are made accordingto the law.
Recommendation 2 Amend the EPBC Act to provide for interestedpersons (including conservation groups) to seek merits reviewof certain decisions, including:
• permits affecting nationally-protected species;
• international movement of wildlife and advice about whetheran action would breach a conservation order; and
• whether a proposed activity is a ‘controlled action’, and if so,the assessment method required.
Open standing is a cornerstone of NSWenvironmental legislation and a similarprovision should be enacted into Federal law
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
61
3 The Hon Justice Peter McClellan, ‘Access To Justice In Environmental Law—An Australian
Perspective’, Commonwealth Law Conference 2005, London, 11–15 September 2005, p 2
(cited below). See further Justice Jerrold Cripps, “People v The Offenders”, Dispute Resolution
Seminar, Brisbane, 6 July 1990.
4 NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (2012) Anti-Corruption Safeguards and the
NSW Planning System, p. 22.
2 These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development (1992) and related UNEP Guidelines for the Development of
National Legislation on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters (2010) (see www.unep.org). In the EU, such rights are protected under
the Aarhus convention: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/.
Extended standing for judicial review and to restrain offences under
the EPBC Act have played a critical role in facilitating public interest
environmental law. However, in addition to the lack of merits review, the
threat of adverse costs orders and the significant cost of legal action
remain considerable barriers to public interest litigation.5
BACKGROUNDWe provide further background on each of these recommendations
below.
Judicial review By allowing the Courts to oversee activities of the Executive, judicial
review is an important safeguard against legal errors and decisions that
go beyond the decision-maker’s powers.
The EPBC Act (section 487) specifically provides ‘extended standing’
for conservationists to seek judicial review of decisions under the Act
and Regulations. This long-standing provision is a critical access to
justice mechanism, and has been used very sparingly since 1999.6
The extended standing test is clearer and far preferable to the common
law test for standing under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review)
Act 1977. However, an even better option that is increasingly included in
modern environmental laws is open standing.
There is a strong rationale to broaden standing for third parties to seek
judicial review, including:
• a general public interest in ensuring that decision-makers comply
with the law;
• where third party rights do exist, they are very rarely exercised. But
the additional scrutiny promotes better decision-making, accountability
and public confidence;
• broadened standing means that individual landholders don’t bear the
entire burden of protecting unique threatened species or World Heritage
Areas like the Great Barrier Reef; and
• a number of expert reviews have emphasised the benefits of broad
legal standing.
Recommendation 3 Amend the EPBC Act to provide for protectivecosts orders:
• so that the Federal Court is not to require an applicant to givean ‘undertaking as to damages’ as a pre-condition to grantingan interim injunction to urgently protect Matters of NationalEnvironmental Significance;
• prohibit ‘security for costs’ orders in public interest proceedingsunder the Act; and
• empower the Federal Court to decide whether a case is a ‘publicinterest proceeding’ and, if so, determine the appropriate formof ‘public interest costs order’.
62
5 Chris McGrath, ‘Flying Foxes, Dams and Whales: using Federal Environmental Laws in the
Public Interest’ (2008) 25 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 324.
6 In 2009, the Senate Environment Committee noted ‘an extremely low level of litigation’ under
the EPBC Act, according to the Federal Department’s statistics. The most recent figures
compiled by Dr Chris McGrath reiterate this trend, with 22 judicial review cases out of around
5,400 Federal project referrals—less than 0.5%.
Concerns that this will open the ‘floodgates’ to litigation, despite various
safeguards, have been thoroughly disproven. As a former Chief Judge
of the Land and Environment Court noted, reflecting on 25 years of
open standing in NSW:
Any fears that open standing will encourage proceedings which have
the potential to destabilise orderly government have been unfounded.
…there has been no suggestion that the open standing provisions
have led to litigation which adversely impacts upon the well-being
of the whole community. The contrary is undoubtedly true.7
Problems with the EPBC Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015
On 20 August 2015, the EPBC Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015 was
introduced to the House of Representatives. The Bill aims to remove
extended standing for conservationists to seek judicial review of decisions
made under the EPBC Act.8 Standing would then be restricted to a person
‘whose interests are adversely affected by the decision’.
This is problematic for community members who are seeking to review
the legality of decisions in the public interest:
[environmental] objectives in bringing litigation—such as to prevent
environmental impacts, raise issues for legislative attention and improve
decision-making processes—reflect public rather than private concerns,
such as protecting property and financial interests.9
To ensure integrity and accountability, the national environmental law
should provide open standing to review the legality of decisions, instead
of narrowing standing to those who must demonstrate their interests
are directly affected.
Merits review Some laws in Australia further increase
accountability by allowing arm’s length
‘merits review’ of key decisions (e.g. NSW
planning law). Merits review allows a Court or tribunal to stand in place
of the decision-maker and make a fresh decision based on the evidence
and the law.
Merits review is not available for any key decisions about environmental
impact assessment or project approval under the EPBC Act. To improve
the rigour, consistency and transparency of decision-making, interested
parties should be able to seek review of the merits of certain decisions
in the Federal Court (including environment groups and people who
made submissions during the consultation period).
This safeguard would also assist where there is greater reliance on state
assessments under bilateral agreements (although EPBC Act approvals
should be kept in Federal hands).
The lack of merits review effectively allows the Minister to make a
subjective decision about Matters of National Environmental Significance,
with no oversight or safeguards in place to ensure accountability or
transparency other than judicial review (if standing is available).
As a safeguard additional to merits review, the Minister should also
be supported by providing more guidance to the decision-maker on
assessment considerations, including Ecologically Sustainable
Development (ESD).
The ability to trigger thirdparty merits reviews must bereinstated into the EPBC Act
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
63
7 The Hon Justice Peter McClellan, ‘Access To Justice In Environmental Law—An Australian
Perspective’, Commonwealth Law Conference 2005, London, 11-15 September 2005, p 2.
8 The Bill would repeal s 487 of the EPBC Act. That section expands who has standing to
challenge decisions under the Act and Regulations, recognising the broad public interest in
conserving Australia’s environment.
9 A. Edgar (2011), ‘Extended standing—Enhanced Accountability? Judicial Review of
Commonwealth Environmental Decisions’ FLR 38, 435-62; cited in Productivity Commission,
Major Project Development Assessment Processes (2013), p 272.
Hawke Report supported additional merits review rights
The Hawke Report recommended reinstating merits review for ministerial
decisions on wildlife permits. This involves reversing 2006 amendments
to the Act that removed these rights for decisions made by the Minister
personally (see section 303GJ).
Hawke also recommended that merits review of ‘controlled action’
decisions and/or ‘assessment approach’ decisions be extended to people
who made formal comments during the decision-making process (see
Hawke recommendations 48-50). As with the Hawke Report generally,
these proposals have not been enacted to date.
Cost barriers to public interest proceedingsDespite the important role of extended standing under the EPBC Act in
public interest environmental law, considerable barriers to public interest
litigation remain—including lack of merits review (above), the significant
cost of legal action, and the threat of adverse costs orders.10 As Justice
Toohey of the High Court has observed, “There is little point in opening
the doors to the court if litigants cannot afford to come in.”
The Productivity Commission’s 2014 report on Access to Justice noted:11
The rationales for government support for environmental matters
are well recognised. The impact of activities or actions that cause
environmental harm typically extend beyond a single individual to
the broader community. …
… If the costs of litigation are high and/or there are substantial costs
to coordinating community interests, this can lead to situations where
there may be environmental matters that are justiciable by the courts
but individuals or communities are unwilling or unable to raise them.
We recommend specific additional provisions to provide for protective
costs orders and related measures. These changes would implement
Hawke Report recommendations 51-53 on public interest proceedings
and court costs. This would promote a balance of safeguards and
oversight, increase public trust in decision-making, and remove significant
barriers to public interest litigation in order to protect Australia’s unique
environmental assets.
CONCLUSIONAustralia’s environment policy regarding the EPBC Act needs
strengthening. Reform is needed to ensure community access to justice,
rigorous decision-making and public confidence in the sound
administration of national environmental law.
First, the EPBC Act should be amended to provide ‘open standing’ for any
person to seek judicial review of government decisions. There are strong
arguments for broadening judicial review rights beyond existing rules.
Second, the Act should be amended to extend standing to merits review
of certain decisions relating to permits and wildlife, controlled action
decisions and assessment approach decisions. This would improve the
rigour and oversight of these decisions.
Third, the Act should provide additional protections for public interest
environmental proceedings. This includes limiting upfront cost orders
that deter the community exercising legal rights; and improving clarity
and certainty by allowing preliminary decisions on whether a matter is
in the public interest, and public interest costs orders in those cases.
These access to justice mechanisms should be part of a broader suite
of EPBC Act reforms.
64
11 Productivity Commission, Reforming Legal Assistance Services—Access to Justice
Arrangements (2014), pp 711-12.
10 Chris McGrath, ‘Flying Foxes, Dams and Whales: using Federal Environmental Laws in the
Public Interest’ (2008) 25 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 324.
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
65
albatross and petrel species in Australia protected with
the help of HSI
22
The recognition of a damaged and at risk ecosystem as a Threatened
Ecological Community (TEC), and thus a ‘Matter of National
Environmental Significance’ (MNES) under the Commonwealth
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC
Act) is a significant milestone in biodiversity conservation. Although
remnants of these TECs can be degraded, listing allows for the protection
of important habitat for many species, including efficiencies in threatened
and migratory species protection, and encourages the targeting
of scientific research, project funding and community efforts in areas
of the environment in most need of threat abatement and restoration.
It also can be a landscape (or seascape) approach to the protection
of ecosystem functions and services.
However, it occurs only after a long and comprehensive process. First
an ecological community needs to be identified and its likelihood of
meeting threatened thresholds under the EPBC Act determined, before
a detailed nomination is prepared—typically by a member of the public
or an environmental organisation, but occasionally internally by the
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC)—addressing how the
community should be defined and why it should be listed as threatened
against a set of six criteria. HSI has submitted close to 50 of these
nominations over the last 20 years.
After the annual deadline for nominations closes, the Commonwealth
Department of Environment assesses them for eligibility prior to the
TSSC considering those that pass the first hurdle, and suggesting to
the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment a Proposed Priority
Assessment List. The Minister then decides on the Finalised Priority
Assessment List (FPAL), typically containing three or four TECs each
year, which is announced along with an assessment deadline normally
between two and three years for the TSSC to compile and provide
advice. These assessment deadlines are often extended, with advice
taking up to five years in some cases, and once provided they require
the Minister to make a listing decision within 90 business days.
Condition Thresholds and Key Diagnostic CharacteristicsDuring assessment of a nominated ecological community, the TSSC
often determines ‘Key Diagnostic Characteristics’ and ‘Condition
Thresholds’ which are included in Conservation and Listing Advices.
These can be used for conservation planning, but more commonly come
into play during proposed developments for proponents to determine
if habitat to be impacted upon is first of all the listed TEC, and secondly
whether it is of sufficient size and condition to be considered a MNES—
thus warranting referral to the Minister for approval, or otherwise, and
guiding any conservation conditions on the development.
The HSI nominated TEC Coolibah-Black Box Woodlands of the Darling
Riverine Plains and the Brigalow Belt South Bioregions, listed as
Endangered in 2011, offers an example of how these Key Diagnostic
Characteristics and Condition Thresholds are used in the event of a
listing. An information sheet was developed by the Department titled
‘Farming and nationally protected Coolibah-Black Box Woodlands’,
which provides the following flowchart to assist landholders or developers
in determining whether or not referral to the Minister of the Environment
is required for the action they wish to take.
This information sheet goes on to state that “Woodlands that do not
meet these criteria are not protected by national environment law”,
meaning that in effect patches of this nationally Threatened Ecological
‘Red Light Protection’ for the Most Threatened HabitatsTHREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES AND THE EPBC ACT: STRENGTHENING PROTECTIONSEVAN QUARTERMAIN*
66
*HSI Senior Program Manager
Community that are under five hectares in size, or approximately seven
football fields, even if in excellent condition, can be safely cleared without
referral to see if EPBC Act approval is needed. A concerning situation when
along with the Key Diagnostic Characteristics, the TSSC’s Conservation
Advice for the TEC also lists clearing and fragmentation as the primary
threat to its existence, with more than 2,500,000 hectares of the
community being cleared since European settlement.
In this way Key Diagnostic Characteristics see many patches of remnant
habitats, as well as recovering vegetation where the TEC was previously
known to exist, considered regular vegetation rather than a MNES.
As a result only the very best bits move past this preliminary stage
of determining whether a development is able to proceed, bringing into
question the issue of long-term TEC recovery—how can severe declines
even begin to be reversed when all small remnants and regrowth can be
destroyed with impunity?
Test of SignificanceThe significance of those remnants that pass the above stage and are
therefore likely to be a MNES is then to be considered by the proponent,
who assess the project using the Significant Impact Guidelines for EPBC
Act Matters of National Environmental Significance to decide whether
or not they should submit a referral for a decision by the Minister for
Environment on whether EPBC Act approval is required (state agencies
can also refer proposals with potential impacts under section 69 of the
Act). If the proponent comes to the conclusion that the development is
unlikely to have a significant impact on the TEC then they may proceed
without further scrutiny—recourse for an incorrect determination
occurring only if investigated by the EPBC Act compliance unit.
If the development is referred to the Minister as potentially impacting
on a MNES in a significant manner, the decision on whether further
approval is required is at the Minister’s discretion. Should the Minister
decide that it is, they can request further assessment such as the
development of Species and Environmental Impact Statements, which
are put out for public consultation to assist the Minister in deciding
whether to approve the development or not. This ministerial discretion
is obviously problematic.
This Test of Significance is also only applied to Endangered and Critically
Endangered TECs, as even the most important remnants of Vulnerable
TECs are not considered MNES, a situation HSI has long argued against
(see Recommendation 8 on page 55 for further information).1
Threatened habitats of thehighest quality must simply beoff-limits to development
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
67
Figure 1. Condition thresholds from EPBC Act Information Sheet Farming and
nationally protected Coolibah-Black Box Woodlands
Does the patch of woodland containcoolibah and/or black box as the
dominant/most common tree species?
Not the Coolibah-Black Box Woodlands ecological community.
The patch is likely to be part of theprotected Coolibah-Black Box
Woodlands ecological community.
Is the ground layer vegetation dominatedby perennial native plant species?
Is the patch of woodland at least 5ha insize AND is at least 10% of the ground
covered by native plant species?
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
1 HSI wishes to acknowledge the tremendous and dedicated work of the staff in the Threatened Ecological
Communities Section of the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy
Minister’s DecisionIf the Minister decided further assessment was required for approval
and the process has passed through the public consultation phase,
Section 139(2) of the EPBC Act states that if:
(a) the Minister is considering whether to approve, for the purposes
of a subsection of section 18 or section 18A, the taking of an action; and
(b) the action has or will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact
on a particular listed threatened species or a particular listed threatened
ecological community;
the Minister must, in deciding whether to so approve the taking of the
action, have regard to any approved conservation advice for the
species or community.
In HSI’s view this wording allows far too much discretion, with almost all
developments that go through the process and are found to significantly
impact upon a MNES still being given approval at the end of the day
(particularly in recent years). It could be argued that in effect the
current situation treats MNES impacts as little more than a box ticking
exercise, an unacceptable outcome considering the difficulty in such
protection being obtained and the thoroughness of the scientific
process to get it there.
The current process is too reliant on political will. Although past
Environment Ministers have used the presence of TECs to reject or place
conditions on developments, at present their occurrence and condition
is simply used to determine offsetting requirements. Even if a patch
is high quality and Critically Endangered, it can still be destroyed in return
for unsatisfactory and unacceptable offsets. It is clear to HSI that the
Commonwealth Department of the Environment is under constant
pressure from its political masters to deliver diagnostic tests to score TEC
condition purely for offsetting metrics, which in our view is scandalous.
(See flow chart opposite for proposed system)
Offsetting ConditionsOften used to soften or justify such approvals are offsetting conditions.
However, these have been widely and internationally condemned due
inevitably to the resulting net loss to biodiversity, and are quite simply
inappropriate and dangerous mitigation measures for impacts on
Endangered and Critically Endangered TECs. Furthermore there is no
scientific evidence that offsets have been successful in producing an
adequate compensation for the loss of biodiversity caused by
approved actions.
HSI’s proposal for strengthened protection under the EPBC ActAmending EPBC Act Section 139
In order to properly protect the ecological communities that have gone
through the long and thorough assessment and listing process and
been assessed by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee to be
Endangered or Critically Endangered—to effectively manage impacts
to Australia’s most severely threatened habitats—HSI has proposed the
following amendments to EPBC Act s139 to all major political parties:
• Amend Section 139 of the EPBC Act so that the Minister must not
approve any action that has or will have, or is likely to have, a significant
impact on a Critically Endangered ecological community (in practice
this means that project proposals would have to be amended to avoid
68
such a significant impact on the best quality areas of a Critically
Endangered Ecological Community and offsets must not be approved);
• Amend Section 139 of the EPBC Act so that the Minister must,
in deciding whether to so approve the taking of an action impacting
on an Endangered ecological community, not act inconsistently with
any approved conservation advice for the community.
While still relying on the (in HSI’s view far too ‘developer friendly’) filtering
process of Condition Thresholds and the Test of Significance, it is our
belief that one of these simple, budget-neutral adjustments will go a long-
way towards providing a much-needed “red flag” mechanism to protect
remnants of Endangered and Critically Endangered TECs nationally.
Need for a well-resourced Department Unit
Such amendments to the EPBC Act, while essential, could still potentially
see significant clearing of TECs, with threatened habitats continuing to
suffer slow death by a thousand cuts—due to a combination of a lack
of resources and Condition Thresholds, with many TEC remnants never
considered as MNES. To ensure the rigorous scientific analysis leading
to a TEC listing is effectively interpreted and the largest areas of critical
habitats are protected, the Commonwealth Government must provide
adequate resources to the TEC Unit within the Department of the
Environment and Energy. Initial estimates indicate that only a modest
addition of staff to increase capacity would be required.
Recommendation: Increased funding must be used to complete the list
of the most threatened ecosystems in Australia (EPBC Act listed TECs)
before they are lost to development, and allow for significant post-listing
action. This would include ensuring recovery plans are developed and
implemented in a timely fashion (at present only a third of TECs have
recovery plans in place), and newly and already listed TECs are mapped in
more detail following listing. This mapping would identify the community’s
regions of highest condition and connectivity, as well as areas that overlap
with habitat of threatened species—those areas most important to retain
—and place them absolutely off-limits to development.
Simple legislative amendmentscan safeguard vital biodiversity
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
69
Figure 2 Outline of a strengthened assessment process for development
applications impacting on TECs under HSI’s proposed EPBC Act amendments
Is the proposed development within anarea mapped as likely to contain a
Threatened Ecological Community?
Proceed with requirements fordevelopments impacting on vegetation
not classified as MNES.
Proceed with requirements fordevelopments impacting on vegetation
not classified as MNES
Development proposal rejected
Compare dominant vegetation specieswith those of TECs with area of occupancy
overlapping the site. Do they match?
Is there a significant impact on the TEC as defined within EPBC Act guidelines?
Can the development proposal beamended to avoid this impact?
Refer new development proposal to Minister of the Environment with
amended Species and EnvironmentalImpact Statements.
Refer development to Minister for theEnvironment and prepare Species and
Environment Impact Statements.
Engage an accredited ecologist todetermine whether the TEC is present
at the site. Did they identify the (or another) TEC?
Yes No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Provide documents to Minister
Yes
Yes
Recommendation: In addition to these areas of highest conservation
value being clearing ‘no-go zones’, if a development is proposed within an
area mapped as likely to contain a TEC, the vegetation to be impacted must
be assessed by at least one accredited ecologist. If the TEC is identified
as being present, and in any of the proposed categories below, then it
must either avoid the community entirely or the application be denied.
Recommendation: These ‘no-go zones’ where offsetting is unacceptable
and development must be rejected, should apply to all Endangered and
Critically Endangered TEC remnants that are in:
• good condition or are old growth;
• medium condition and overlapping with known presence of a listed
EPBC Act species; or
• any condition that forms a vital role in the landscape (e.g. wildlife
corridor connectivity).
Recommendation: Associated stewardship funding should be provided
to property owners with TECs present on their land to assist with land
management actions to deliver increased productivity through the
provision of ecosystem services. This Government investment would
likely be relatively modest and provide very high value biodiversity
conservation, and is a vital step to halt the decline of ecosystems on
the brink.
A good model for such funding already exists through the highly
successful but now halted Commonwealth Environmental Stewardship
Programme, which provided long-term support for private landholders
to maintain and improve the condition of MNES. A future stewardship
programme should ensure that there is a funding cap per hectare set,
with a focus on improving medium quality areas to high quality habitat,
and that landscape connectivity beyond individual property boundaries
is a key factor in determining successful projects.
Critical species habitats and the EPBC Act: time to get seriousWhile this chapter has so far addressed issues with, and suggested
reforms for, Threatened Ecological Communities that would strengthen
their protection as de facto critical habitat sites, there remain serious
deficiencies within the EPBC Act regarding critical habitat protection—
recognised as being essential to the survival of listed species. Strong
critical habitat provisions within the US Endangered Species Act 1973
have seen significant threatened species recovery success, with species
with identified and protected critical habitat being twice as likely to
recover as those without it (Taylor et al. 2005).
Section 207A of the EPBC Act requires the Minister for the Environment
to establish a Register of Critical Habitat for threatened species and
ecological communities “in which the Minister may list habitat identified
by the Minister in accordance with the regulations as being critical to the
survival of a listed threatened species or listed threatened ecological
community.” HSI is very strongly supportive of the register, but successive
Governments have ignored its presence, with no new additions since
February 2005 and critical habitats for just five species listed: Ginninderra
peppercress, the black-eared miner, and wandering, shy and grey-headed
albatrosses. This represents a criminal waste of long-term conservation
opportunity.
70
Offences for knowingly damaging critical habitat are also limited to
Commonwealth areas, reducing the register’s effectiveness, and we
continue to advocate for the expansion of critical habitat provisions to
apply across all land tenures. However even without such a broadening,
critical habitat can play a vital role in protecting the most essential habitats
and contributing to their recovery. For example if critical habitat for a
threatened species or ecological community identified on Commonwealth
land is included on the register, it would necessitate in-perpetuity
protection through a conservation agreement if the land was ever sold, as
well as provide a priority site for actions to be included in a recovery plan.
The 2009 Hawke Report of the EPBC Act proposed a requirement to
identify critical habitat at the time of listing threatened items, including
description and spatial identification, a proposition supported by HSI
along with similar treatment for already listed species and ecological
communities.
Recommendation: To ensure this recommendation is utilised as
effectively as possible the EPBC Act requires an amendment to clarify
that the Minister for the Environment must not approve impacts
(significant or not) or developments on critical habitat of Endangered
or Critically Endangered species or TECs, instead seeking conservation
agreements or covenants with relevant landholders to protect the
critical habitat of all threatened species and ecological communities.
Additional conservation recommendations (for full recommendations on TEC and Critical Habitat amendments see the Priority EPBC Act
Amendments Chapter beginning on page 44)
• Condition Thresholds for TECs are too easy to circumvent, allowing
developments to progressively destroy remnants, and the criteria to
trigger an EPBC Act referral require tightening;
• there should be no ministerial discretion
on the requirement for further assessment
if a development is referred as potentially
significantly impacting on a MNES—
in these cases Species and Environmental Impact Statements must
be mandatory;
• if a development application has been assessed and it is determined
that it would significantly impact on a MNES, approval must not be
granted until the project plan is amended to avoid this impact. If this
does not or cannot occur, the development application must be declined;
• offsetting is an inappropriate and inadequate mitigation measure for
impacts on Endangered and Critically Endangered TECs, and should
not be used to facilitate development;
• critical habitat must be required to be identified at the time a species
or TEC is listed, with mapping published and publicly available;
• the Commonwealth Minister for Environment must commit to listing
the critical habitats of all Critically Endangered species and ecological
communities as a matter of priority;
• the EPBC Act’s critical habitat provisions need to be amended to
protect habitats across all land tenures.
ReferencesTaylor, M. T., Suckling, K. S. & Rachlinski, R. R. (2005) The effectiveness
of the Endangered Species Act: A quantitative analysis.
BioScience. 55 (4): 360–367
Critically Endangered and EndangeredTECs must be absolute clearing ‘no-go zones’
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
71
Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-20301 (the ABCS or
the Strategy) is a high level document designed to provide “a guiding
framework for conserving our nation’s biodiversity over the coming
decades for all sectors—government, business and the community”.
Prepared by the intergovernmental National Biodiversity Strategy Review
Task Group, the ABCS provides a set of broad principles and priorities
for action. While these are prerequisites to effective conservation and
recovery of Australia’s vast numbers of threatened species, they are, by
themselves insufficient to achieve that outcome. Not only do the existing
National Targets contained in the ABCS and measures to achieve them
require revision. The more specific threatened species actions outlined
in other sections of this policy paper must necessarily dovetail with the
long-term goals addressed in this section. Threats to individual species
leading to a risk of extinction, planning for effective recovery of species
already at risk and mechanisms to protect habitat are integral to the
conservation of biodiversity.
In its opening section, the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
2010-2030 commits to “10 interim national targets for the first five years”.
The ABCS goes on to commit to a 2015 assessment of “progress in
implementing the Strategy, including its national targets” together with
consideration of “whether the targets or other elements of the Strategy
should be amended”2.
Independent assessment of progress in meeting ‘interim’National TargetsIn April 2015 HSI undertook an independent assessment of progress
towards achievement of each of the 10 ‘interim national targets’.
In doing its assessment HSI used information from government and
from independent sources, with the results being reported3 using a
traffic light system as follows:
Table 1 (opposite) represents the results of that independent assessment.
Each of these assessments is accompanied by a context-setting
commentary, a brief statement on the performance rating and
Recommendations for improvement.
72
*Dr Lambert prepared this assessment as the principle investigator for ‘Community Solutions’
National Biodiversity Conservation StrategyREPORT CARD and REVISED GOALSDR JUDY LAMBERT AM*
• Target largely achieved
• Making progress, but some considerable way to go to achieve the target
• Little or no progress towards achieving this target and/or Seriousimpediments to progress
1 Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council (2010). Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy 2010-2030. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population & Communities, Canberra. p.8.
2 ibid p.10.
3 Humane Society International (April 2015). Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
2010-2030: An Independent Review of Progress. Submission to the Australian Government
Department of the Environment, Canberra.
http://hsi.org.au/assets/publications/ABCSreview2015.pdf
Two elements are important in reviewing
the Strategy and its failure to date to turn
around Australia’s biodiversity crisis:
• Is satisfactory progress being made in
implementing the Strategy and the actions set out in it?; and
• Are the targets set appropriate to measuring progress towards
achieving “healthy and resilient biodiversity and providing a basis for
living sustainably”?
Is satisfactory progress being made in implementing the Strategy?
As the traffic light assessment provided in Table 1 indicates, progress
in implementing the Strategy has been disappointing to a point where
both the targets and the processes for implementing them require
major revision.
Are the targets set appropriate to measuring progress towards
achieving “healthy and resilient biodiversity and providing a basis
for living sustainably”?
It is important that the targets set enable tracking of progress towards
desired biodiversity outcomes. The Department of the Environment4
defines such measures as SMART indicators—indicators that are:
Simple (easily interpreted and monitored);
Measurable (statistically verifiable, reproducible and showing trends);
Accessible (regularly monitored, cost- effective and consistent);
Relevant (directly addressing issues or agreed objectives, such as those
of the Matters for Target for biodiversity conservation); and
Timely (providing early warning of potential problems).
In HSI’s estimation, of the BiodiversityStrategy’s ten 2015 National InterimTargets, only one was fully achieved
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
73
National interim targetsProgressto date
1By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in the number of Australians andpublic and private organisations who participate in biodiversityconservation activities. •
2 By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in employment and participation of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation. •
3 By 2015, achieve a doubling of the value of complementary marketsfor ecosystem services. •
4By 2015, achieve a national increase of 600,000km2 of native habitatmanaged primarily for biodiversity conservation across terrestrial,aquatic and marine environments. •
5 By 2015, 1,000km2 of fragmented landscapes and aquatic systems are being restored to improve ecological connectivity. •
6 By 2015, four collaborative continental-scale linkages are establishedand managed to improve ecological connectivity. •
7By 2015, reduce by at least 10% the impacts of invasive species onthreatened species and ecological communities in terrestrial, aquaticand marine environments. •
8 By 2015, nationally agreed science and knowledge priorities forbiodiversity conservation are guiding research activities. •
9By 2015, all jurisdictions will review relevant legislation, policies andprograms to maximise alignment with Australia’s BiodiversityConservation Strategy. •
10 By 2015, establish a national long-term biodiversity monitoring andreporting system. •
4 Department of the Environment. Environmental indicators for Reporting.
http://www.environment.gov.au [First published 2006 as part of Australia’s State of the
Environment reporting, most recently accessed 6/2/2015]
Table 1. Progress towards achieving ‘interim’ national biodiversity targets
Few, if any, of the national targets contained in Australia’s current
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, satisfy these criteria. Of particular
significance is the need to provide a baseline measure against which
progress towards each target can be assessed over time.
In January 2016 HSI recommended a revised set of national Biodiversity
Conservation targets that better align with international responsibilities5.
These new targets (see Tables 2 and 3) are consistent with the inter -
national Strategic Plan for Biodiversity6 and its Aichi targets. The proposed
new national targets are also guided by The UN General Assembly’s
17 Global Sustainable Development Goals and the accompanying
169 targets adopted in September 20157.
Such an alignment would:
• Provide for more strategic and measurable assessment of progress
towards biodiversity conservation;
• Make transparent to all sectors of the Australian community Australia’s
efforts to conserve biodiversity and the mechanisms for measuring
that progress; and
• Streamline national and international reporting of Australia’s progress
towards biodiversity conservation, reducing duplication of effort and
enabling the same datasets to address different needs.
Recommendations for improving the existing ‘interim’national biodiversity targets
HSI recommends that:
1. The overarching national targets be reviewed to ensure that they meet
the criteria set for ‘SMART’ targets;
2. The revision process include consultation and opportunities for input
from all sectors, particularly the scientific community and those in the
community with a strong understanding of the current and ongoing
decline in Australia’s biodiversity, and the approaches needed to
arrest and reverse the crisis;
3. Both the national targets and the outcomes sought be better aligned
with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets used to assess progress in
implementing the UN’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020;
4. The Australian Government provide leadership in revising the national
targets and the outcomes and actions that underpin them. The changes
should be achieved working in collaboration with other jurisdictions,
scientists, business and community interests, including non-government
organisations with a demonstrated interest in the conservation of
Australia’s biodiversity;
In addition, HSI recommends that:
5. In order to track progress, consistent with sound adaptive management
principles, further 5-yearly reviews be conducted throughout the life
of the ABCS.
Furthermore, as described in Table 2 below, HSI recommends that the
individual ‘interim’ national biodiversity targets be improved through
the following:
74
5 Humane Society International (Jan 2016). Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-
2030: A Proposal for Revised Targets. Submission to the Australian Government Department
of the Environment, Canberra. http://hsi.org.au/assets/publications/ABCSreview2015.pdf
6 Convention on Biological Diversity and UNEP (2010). Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020
and the Aichi Targets http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/
7 UN General Assembly (Sept 2015). Sustainable Development Goals 2015: Time for Global Action.
www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
Australian species have
received legal protection
thanks to HSI
73
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
75
76
Target 1 (2010-2015): By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in the
number of Australians and public and private organisations who
participate in biodiversity conservation activities.
Recommendation 6 That in reviewing the Australian Biodiversity
Conservation Strategy and its interim targets, all jurisdictions
collaborate to develop more meaningful national targets relating
to the outcomes identified in the National Action Plan.
Recommendation 7 That the Target, and the Outcomes sought
be more closely related to:
• Aichi target 1 (awareness of the values of biodiversity and the
steps that people can take to conserve and use it sustainably);
• Aichi target 2 (integration of biodiversity values into development
strategies, planning processes, national accounting systems and
reporting systems);
• Aichi target 4 (Governments, business and stakeholders at all
levels have taken steps to achieve… sustainable production and
consumption… ); and
• Aichi targets 17 to 20 (addressing enhanced implementation
through participatory planning, knowledge management and
capacity building). That the Australian Government revitalise its
private land conservation covenanting program as an important
strategy in increasing community engagement in rural landscapes.
Preferred new national targets Replace ‘interim’ national target 1
with two new national targets:
New National Target 1 By December 2017, government funded
projects directed to biodiversity conservation include an explicit
allocation to biodiversity awareness-raising and final acceptance
of project completion is contingent on evidence of such activities
within the project. (Relates particularly to Aichi Target 1).
New National Target 2 By December 2017, review of the Australian
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy has been completed and the
resulting Strategy and its Action Plan are based on scientific
evidence and include substantial opportunities for participatory
action by individuals, communities, public sector organisations
and businesses. (Relates particularly to Aichi targets 4 and 17).
Recommendation 8 That the guidelines for government funded
projects for biodiversity conservation be amended to include
explicit requirements for inclusion of an allocation to biodiversity
awareness-raising and that final acceptance of project completion
be contingent on evidence of such activities within each
funded project.
Table 2. HSI recommendations and preferred new national targets
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
77
Target 2 (2010-2015): By 2015, achieve a 25% increase
in employ ment and participation of Indigenous peoples
in biodiversity conservation.
Recommendation 9 That the focus of the previous Working on
Country program on promoting biodiversity and conservation of
cultural resources be reinstated within the current Jobs, Land and
Economy program8.
Recommendation 10 That non-government organisations working
with Aboriginal people to manage their country for conservation
outcomes, through collaborative use of appropriate fire regimes,
feral animal and weed control and other mechanisms, receive public
and private sector support for such work.
Recommendation 11 That in reviewing national target 2 and actions
to achieve it, greater attention be paid to:
• Aichi target 2 (biodiversity values integrated with development
and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and
being incorporated in national accounts and reporting systems);
• Aichi target 14 (restoration of essential ecosystem services…
taking account of Indigenous needs);
• Aichi target 15 (relating to ecosystem resilience and the
contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks); and
• Aichi target 18 (relating to traditional knowledge, innovations
and practices and customary use of biological resources).
Preferred new national target Retain ‘interim’ target 2 and update
to become new national target 3.
New National Target 3 (Previous Target 2, updated): By 2020,
achieve a 25 per cent increase in employment and participation of
Indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation, using 2015 figures
as a baseline. (Relates particularly to Aichi Targets 2, 14, 15 and 18).
Target 3 (2010-2015): By 2015, achieve a doubling of the value
of complementary markets for ecosystem services.
Recommendation 12 That the Australian Government provides
leadership in ensuring the successful application of market-based
instruments to the conservation of ecosystem services by facilitating
strategic dialogue within and among governments at state and
national scales.
Recommendation 13 That the dialogue begin from a premise that
the relationships between ecosystem processes, services benefits
and beneficiaries provides a way to inform planning, rather than
viewing ecological debates as a contest between biodiversity and
socio-economic benefits.
Recommendation 14 That greater attention be paid to the design
of programs providing payments for ecosystem services, to ensure
that they do not result in perverse outcomes harmful to biodiversity.
In this context Australian participation in the work of the UN Inter -
governmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
should prove beneficial.
8 Australian Government. Jobs, Land and Economy. www.indigenous.gov.au
[accessed December 2015].
The Biodiversity Strategy has made some progressin increasing the value of complementary marketsfor ecosystems services
78
Recommendation 15 That where complementary markets are used
in conserving biodiversity or ecosystem services, government
commitments be to long-term support for their implementation
through holistic actions.
Recommendation 16 That biobanking and offsetting schemes for
the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services not be
applied where Matters of National Environmental Significance
are involved.
Recommendation 17 That in redefining target 3 of the ABCS greater
account be taken of Aichi target 3, which relates to “elimination,
phase out or reform” of “incentives, including subsidies, harmful
to biodiversity”.
Preferred new national target Replace ‘interim’ national target 3
with the following:
New National Target 4 Using 2015 as a baseline, by 2020, achieve
a doubling of the value of biodiversity outcomes of complementary
markets for ecosystem services, after first ensuring that incentives,
including subsidies, which result in perverse outcomes harmful to
biodiversity, have been eliminated, phased out or reformed in order
to avoid or minimise negative impacts. (Relates particularly to
Aichi target 3).
Target 4 (2010-2015): By 2015, achieve a national increase of
600,000km2 of native habitat managed primarily for biodiversity
conservation across, terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments.
Recommendation 18 That the Australian Government work in close
collaboration with state and territory Governments and with non-
government conservation organisations to ensure that the National
Reserve System and the Marine Reserve System become
“comprehensive, adequate and representative” of species, ecological
communities and ecosystems, thus meeting long-standing national
and international commitments.
Recommendation 19 That consistent with the recommendations
provided by Taylor, Fitzsimons and Sattler (2014)9, the Australian
Government increase funding for the National Reserve System to
$170 million per year and that appropriate funding be provided
to enable the buy-out of fisheries operations needed to achieve a
comprehensive, adequate and representative marine and coastal
reserve system.
Recommendation 20 That the National Reserve System, Ecosystems
of National Importance, Wetlands of National Importance and Wild
Rivers become Matters of National Environmental Significance under
the provisions of the EPBC Act, thus requiring the Commonwealth
Minister for the Environment to approve any action that will have,
or is likely to have, a significant impact.
9 Taylor MFJ, Fitzsimons JA and Sattler PS (2014). Building Nature's Safety Net 2014: A decade
of protected area achievements in Australia. WWF-Australia, Sydney.
Protected areas need to be fullyrepresentative of all Australia’secosystems
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
79
Recommendation 21 That the current reviews of Marine Protected
Areas be discontinued and instead the Australian Government
embrace the substantial body of science already amassed in
determining the composition of the national marine reserve system,
and ratify a world class network of marine parks.
Recommendation 22 That governments increase funding allocations
to enable greater provision of incentives to landholders adopting
permanent conservation covenants on their properties, with
emphasis placed on those parcels of land that are important in
protecting Threatened Ecological Communities and those providing
habitat connectivity across the landscape. In particular, that the
Australian Government revitalise the national covenanting program
and that places adopting an in-perpetuity conservation covenant
be designated Matters of National Environmental Significance.
Recommendation 23 That state and local governments provide
rate relief to landholders with in-perpetuity conservation covenants
on their properties, thus providing additional incentives for entry
into such agreements to protect high conservation value remnants,
and to provide additional resources for management of that land.
Recommendation 24 That governments review relevant taxation
laws, so that conservation is properly recognised as a legitimate
land use, thus allowing owners of land managed for conservation
outcomes to deduct non-capital expenditure on conservation
works against income, and allowing land protected by in-perpetuity
covenants to be exempt from capital gains tax on future sale or
purchase of that land.
Recommendation 25 That activities such as mining and other
activities causing substantial change to biodiversity values not be
permitted on land that is under a permanent conservation covenant.
Recommendation 26 That in reframing ABCS target 4, greater
account be taken of:
• Aichi target 5 (relating to loss, degradation and fragmentation
of habitat);
• Aichi target 7 (relating to sustainable management of agriculture,
aquaculture and forestry); and
• Aichi target 11 (relating to conservation of 17% of terrestrial and
inland water and 10% of marine areas through “ecologically
representative and well connected systems of protected areas…”).
Preferred new national target Replace ‘interim’ national target 4
with the following:
New National Target 5 By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial
lands and inland water, and 15 per cent of coastal and marine areas,
especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and
ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably
managed ecologically representative and well connected systems
of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation
measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape.
(Relating directly to Aichi target 11).
80
Target 5 (2010-2015): By 2015, 1,000km2 of fragmented
landscapes and aquatic systems are being restored to improve
ecological connectivity.
Recommendation 27 That a science-based whole-of-landscape
approach be taken and rewarded in planning and managing for
biodiversity conservation, with ‘biodiversity hotspots’, climate
refugia and other places of high biodiversity significance given
priority for support.
Recommendation 28 That the objectives of programs such as the
National Landcare Programme, the Twenty Million Trees Programme
and the Green Army Programme be clearly directed to restoration
of fragmented landscapes and that the achievements of funded
projects be measured against these objectives.
Recommendation 29 That a strong Environmental Stewardship
Programme, targeting remnants of fragmented Threatened
Ecological Communities, climate refugia and landscape connectivity,
be established as a high priority for restoration of fragmented
landscapes.
Recommendation 30 That state and Federal laws governing the
conservation of biodiversity and, in particular, native vegetation
be retained and strengthened to ensure that clearing be permitted
only where it can be shown to “maintain or improve” the biodiversity
of an area.
Recommendation 31 That, in revisiting ABCS target 5 greater
account be taken of:
• Aichi target 5 (relating to loss, degradation and fragmentation
of habitat);
• Aichi target 7 (relating to sustainable management of agriculture,
aquaculture and forestry);
• Aichi target 11 (relating to conservation of 17% of terrestrial and
inland water and 10% of marine areas through ‘ecologically
representative and well connected systems of protected areas…”);
• Aichi target 14 (ecosystems providing essential services, taking
into account the needs of women, indigenous and local
communities, and the poor and vulnerable); and
• Aichi target 15 (ecosystem resilience through conservation and
restoration of at least 15% of degraded ecosystems).
Preferred new national target Replace ‘interim’ national target 5
with the following:
New National Target 6 By 2020, at least 15 per cent of degraded
ecosystems are being restored, and areas being used for agricultural
or pastoral production, forestry and aquaculture are being managed
sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity and habitat
connectivity. (Relates primarily to Aichi targets 4, 5, and 7).
Large-scale conservationconnectivity projects significantlyimprove biodiversity resilience
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
81
Preferred new national target Replace ‘interim’ national target 6
with the following:
New National Target 7 By 2020, at least four collaborative large-
scale linkages are established and managed to improve ecological
connectivity, the areas of focus being determined by science-
based assessment of the capacity of sites to provide landscape-
scale connectivity between strictly protected areas, climate refugia
and other sites of high biodiversity significance. (Relates most
directly to Aichi targets 4, 5 and 7).
Target 6 (2010-2015): By 2015, four collaborative continental-
scale linkages are established and managed to improve
ecological connectivity.
Recommendation 32 That the Australian Government provide
leadership in re-establishing a national landscape-scale program
supporting collaborative establishment and ongoing management
of continental-scale linkages to improve ecological connectivity.
Recommendation 33 That enduring institutional arrangements be
established to support the development of collaborative large-
scale connectivity projects.
Recommendation 34 That high quality remnant habitat within
recognised large-scale connectivity corridors be given priority in
Australian Government funding programs.
Recommendation 35 That priorities for the landscape connectivity
program be guided by science, noting the available information
on project design, climate refugia, habitat fragmentation, and
‘biodiversity hotspots’.
Recommendation 36 That the National Reserve System, and its
expansion to a more comprehensive, adequate and representative
system for Australian biodiversity conservation, provide a core of
these projects.
Recommendation 37 That those large-scale connectivity projects
that have already made significant progress be supported to
progress their achievements to date.
Recommendation 38 That in reviewing this national target, greater
account be taken of those aspects of Aichi target 11 which addresses
“well connected systems of protected areas”. ABCS target 6 should
also have regard to:
• Aichi target 4, addressing sustainable production and keeping
use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits;
• Aichi target 5 relating to rate of loss of all natural habitats; and
• Aichi target 7 relating to sustainable management of agriculture,
aquaculture and forestry ensuring conservation of biodiversity.
82
10 Hawke A (Oct 2009). The Australian Environment Act. Report of the Independent Review
of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Report to the Minister
for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
1 1 Atlas of Living Australia. www.ala.org.au
Target 7 (2010-2015): By 2015, reduce by at least 10% the impacts
of invasive species on threatened species and ecological
communities in terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments.
Recommendation 39 That the threats posed by invasive species
to threatened species, ecological communities and ecosystems
be elevated to a status equivalent to that given to species impacting
on agricultural and other industries and that programs
recognising this need be established and properly resourced.
Recommendation 40 That, consistent with the recommendations of
the Hawke Report (2009)10 on the EPBC Act, invasive species
posing a risk to significant environmental aspects of Australia’s
biodiversity, be specifically addressed under the provisions of the
Act, including triggers to conduct an environmental import risk
assessment of both existing permitted imports and those proposed
in the future.
Recommendation 41 That funding to address weed and feral animal
control be allocated at the time of listing of Threatened Ecological
Communities under the provisions of the EPBC Act.
Recommendation 42 That risk assessment processes determining
permissible entry of new species to Australia be science-based,
taking account of likely environmental impacts as well as impacts
on industry, and that they be conducted through transparent
processes open to public input.
Recommendation 43 That the capacity of local landholders and
others in the community to recognise and report unusual plant
and animal species is strengthened and that such community-
based surveillance be supported by an enhanced network of
NRM professionals trained in the biosecurity pathway.
Recommendation 44 That, as has repeatedly been called for in
reviews of invasive species management and control, the Australian,
State and Territory governments make every effort to better
harmonise and build consistency between their various laws and
programs governing invasive species.
Recommendation 45 That, as part of increasing the flow of
information about biosecurity, national datasets be made available
in the Atlas of Living Australia1 1 or another readily accessible
repository, on the occurrence, detection and new incursions
of weeds.
Recommendation 46 That governments at all levels collaborate
to ensure that Threat Abatement Plans are developed and
implemented for all invasive-species related Key Threatening
Processes recognised nationally under the provisions of the
EPBC Act.
The important role of the dingoin controlling invasive speciesmust be recognised
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
83
Recommendation 47 That, as part of a risk-based approach to
invasive species control, the impact of proposed control measures
on native species be considered prior to implementation of any
particular control action.
Recommendation 48 That the Australian Government develop
a National Dingo Conservation Strategy, in recognition of the
important role dingoes play in suppressing populations of foxes
and feral cats and therefore the conservation of numerous
threatened species. The Strategy should include a dingo rewilding
program and trial introductions of Maremma guard dogs to replace
baiting controls in priority regions.
Recommendation 49 In addressing recommendations to reduce
the impacts of invasive species on threatened species and ecological
communities in terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments, HSI
supports the full suite of recommendations made by the Invasive
Species Council in its September 2014 submission to the Senate
Inquiry into invasive species.
Recommendation 50 In reviewing this national target, full account
should be taken of:
• Aichi target 9, in which alien species and pathways are identified
and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and
measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their
introduction and establishment,
• Aichi target 10 relating to anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs
and other vulnerable ecosystems; and
• Aichi target 12, relating to prevention of extinction of known
threatened species is also relevant to ABCS target 7.
Preferred new national target Replace ‘interim’ national target 7
with the following:
New National Target 8 By 2020, coordinated, well-funded efforts
are in place to (1) prevent the arrival of new potentially harmful
species and (2) have achieved a net reduction in the impacts
of existing invasive species on threatened species and ecological
communities in terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments through
prevention of entry, early detection and risk-based management
of control and eradication. (Relates most directly to Aichi target 9).
84
12 Six ‘priority directions’: Enhancing relationships between scientists and end-users;
Supporting long-term research; Enabling ecosystem surveillance; Making the most of data
sources; Empowering the public with knowledge and opportunities; and Facilitating coordination,
collaboration and leadership. From: Ecosystem Science Long-term Plan Steering Committee
(2014). Foundations for the Future. A long-term plan for Australia’s ecosystem science.
www.ecosystemscienceplan.org.au
Target 8 (2010-2015): By 2015, nationally agreed science and
knowledge priorities for biodiversity conservation are guiding
research activities.
Recommendation 51 That the six priority directions for the futureof Australian ecosystem science outlined in the Ecosystem ScienceLong-Term Plan (2014)12 be supported by governments, researchscientists and the community.
Recommendation 52 That mechanisms to enhance collaboration
between ecosystem scientists from different disciplines and
between ecosystem scientists and end-users (at policy, program
and on-ground levels) be developed, implemented and supported.
Recommendation 53 That, recognising the long-term nature
of many ecological changes, dedicated long-term funding be
committed for ecosystem research.
Recommendation 54 That systematic, continental-scale monitoring
essential for ecosystem variables be established and maintained
to identify trends in the health of our ecosystems.
Recommendation 55 That ecosystem science datasets be
professionally archived and made easily accessible to the broad
range of potential end-users who will benefit from that information.
Recommendation 56 That the science and datasets that under -
pinned the national Biodiversity Hotspots program be reviewed
and updated as an important source of information on which to
build conservation programs.
Recommendation 57 That processes be put in place to ensure
that ecosystem science is provided to school students and the
wider community in ways that inspire their knowledge and
appreciation of Australia’s ecosystems.
Recommendation 58 That governments, the Ecosystem Science
Council and others provide leadership in ensuring greater
collaboration and coordination of ecosystem science.
Recommendation 59 That government funding programs are
established in ways that not only enable, but also facilitate the
formation of partnerships and collaborations, rather than the
current competitively-based funding models.
Recommendation 60 That community-based research and
knowledge initiatives such as the Atlas of Living Australia,
continue to be supported and promoted to potential users.
Recommendation 61 In reviewing national target 8, full account
be taken of:
• Aichi target 19, which relates directly to ABCS target 8, addressing
the role of knowledge, science base and technologies into
biodiversity conservation and management;
• Aichi target 18, which relates to the integration of Indigenous
knowledge into conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
(an area in which some progress has been made) is also relevant.
HSI helped protect 19 marine reserves for the Critically
Endangered grey nurse shark
Secured
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
85
86
Preferred new national target Replace ‘interim’ national target 8
with the following:
New National Target 9 By 2020, the six priority areas for action
identified within the Long-term Plan for Australia’s Ecosystem
Science have been accepted as nationally agreed science and
knowledge priorities for biodiversity conservation and are guiding
collaborative research activities, policy and programs to conserve
Australia’s ecosystems. (Relates primarily to Aichi targets 18 and 19).
Target 9 (2010-2015): By 2015, all jurisdictions will review relevant
legislation, policies and programs to maximise alignment with
Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.
Recommendation 62 That the Australian Government retain its
powers to address all Matters of National Environmental Significance
under the EPBC Act, recognising that:
• only the Australian Government can deliver on Australia’s
international environmental obligations;
• states have an inherent conflict of interest in assessing the
environmental impacts of development proposals in the national
interest, while also seeking to reap short-term economic benefits
from such developments;
• national environmental issues often cross jurisdictional boundaries
and thus need national leadership in determining their
appropriateness; and
• states and territories have already demonstrated a lack
of capacity to appropriately assess major projects.
Recommendation 63 That the Australian Government take a lead
in coordinating a review of existing biodiversity legislation in all
jurisdictions, with a view to better coordinating and harmonising
efforts to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem functions, including
the listing of threatened species and ecological communities,
strengthening government obligations, increasing access to courts
for public enforcement, and doing so while maintaining
Commonwealth national legislative oversight.
Recommendation 64 That a revised and updated set of national
targets within the ABCS provide the framework for a more
consistent approach, and that the Aichi targets provide a basis
for this update.
Recommendation 65 That in undertaking this review, all jurisdictions
commit to new generation legislation, directed to improving
legislative protection of biodiversity based on best available
science, taking account of the likely impacts of climate change on
Australia’s biodiversity, and addressing the cumulative impacts and
other systemic failures of current legislation.
Recommendation 66 That in undertaking this alignment process,
greater consideration be given to sustainable agricultural, fisheries
and forestry production in those areas of the landscape that are
not reserved for biodiversity conservation outcomes.
The Commonwealth government mustretain its powers to protect Matters of National Environmental Significance
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
87
Recommendation 67 That in seeking to improve the national targets
for biodiversity conservation, the Australian, state and territory
governments take account of:
• Aichi target 2 (integration of biodiversity values into development,
poverty reduction and planning processes);
• Aichi target 4 (implementation of plans for sustainable production
and consumption, keeping NRM use well within safe ecological
limits); and
• Aichi target 17 (implementation of an effective, participatory
and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan).
Preferred new national target Replace ‘interim’ national target 9
with the following:
New National Target 10 By 2020, all jurisdictions will have reviewed
relevant legislation, policies and programs and adopted and
commenced implementation of an effective, participatory and
updated biodiversity strategy, action plan and laws to maximise
alignment with Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
within a context of retention of Australian Government approvals
powers. (Relates primarily to Aichi target 17).
Target 10 (2010-2015): By 2015, establish a national long-term
biodiversity monitoring and reporting system.
Recommendation 68 That the Australian, state and territory
governments support the development of science-based, nationally
agreed indicators and monitoring protocols that enable analysis
of trends in key biodiversity indicators at the species, population,
ecological community, ecosystem and threat level, and that scientists,
resource managers (including those in industry), community
organisations involved in long-term biodiversity monitoring, and
policy makers all have an opportunity to participate in the
development of these indicators and protocols.
Recommendation 69 That, consistent with the recommendations
of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, a national
system of ‘environmental accounts’, with parallels in accountability
to those applied to the economy, be developed and implemented
in relation to the nation’s biodiversity.
Recommendation 70 That private companies undertaking
biodiversity monitoring be required to contribute their data to
the ‘national environmental accounts’.
Recommendation 71 That funding programs be reshaped to include
provision for monitoring and reporting of outcomes beyond the
funded life of a project.
Recommendation 72 That data curation and maintenance of records
become a national priority accessible to all who have an interest
in biodiversity.
New national biodiversity conservation targets
It is also HSI’s recommendation that the ABCS would benefit from a
more comprehensive revision and restructure that makes better use of
both the Aichi targets and the global Sustainable Development Goals
and their recognition of the “integrated and indivisible” nature of goals
relating to the well-being of people and the planet.
However, in the interests of progressing the current review of the ABCS
and its national targets, we have limited our attention to the national
targets (see Tables 2 and 3) and ways in which they might best be
restructured to strengthen their contribution to biodiversity conservation.
The proposed new national targets are placed in context in Table 3 below.
88
Recommendation 73 That lessons learned from biodiversity
monitoring be made widely available and their application to
changed outcomes documented.
Recommendation 74 That ongoing support be provided both for
maintaining long-term biodiversity monitoring and for community-
based programs such as the Atlas of Living Australia and the Atlas
of Australian Birds.
Recommendation 75 That in reviewing national target 10, full
account be taken of:
• Aichi target 2 (integrating biodiversity values into development
and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and
their incorporation into national accounting, as appropriate, and
reporting); and
• Aichi target 19 (on use of knowledge and science base in relation
to improving biodiversity status and trends).
Preferred new national targets Replace ‘interim’ national target
10 with two new national targets:
New National Target 11 By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values
have been integrated into national and local development strategies
and planning processes and are being incorporated into national
accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems. (Relates most
directly to Aichi target 2).
New National Target 12 By 2020, the science base and technologies
relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends,
and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely shared and
transferred, and applied, using the priority areas for action identified
in the Long-term Plan for Australia’s Ecosystem Science as a basis
for shared information. (Relates most directly to Aichi target 19).
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
89
ABCS Priority action 1: Engaging all Australians
ABCS 2015 National Target Proposed National Target, 2016-2020 (HSI)
1.1 Mainstreaming biodiversity (awareness-raising, public participation, industry participation,and cross-sectoral integration in planning andmanagement)
1. By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in thenumber of Australians and public and privateorganisations who participate in biodiversityconservation activities
1. By December 2017, government funded projects directed to biodiversity conservationinclude an explicit allocation to biodiversity awareness-raising and that final acceptanceof project completion is contingent on evidence of such activities within the project
2. By December 2017, review of the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy hasbeen completed and the resulting Strategy and its Action Plan are based on scientificevidence and include substantial opportunities for participatory action by individuals,communities, public sector organisations and businesses
1.2 Increasing Indigenous participation(employment and participation, use ofknowledge, extent of land managed)
2. By 2015, achieve a 25% increase inemployment and participation of Indigenouspeoples in biodiversity conservation
3. By 2020, achieve a 25 per cent increase in employment and participation of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation, using 2015 figures as a baseline
1.3 Enhancing strategic investments andpartnerships (use of markets and otherincentives, private expenditure, public-private partnerships)
3. By 2015, achieve a doubling of the value ofcomplementary markets for ecosystem services
4. Using 2015 as a baseline, by 2020, achieve a doubling of the value of biodiversityoutcomes of complementary markets for ecosystem services, after first ensuring thatincentives, including subsidies, which result in outcomes harmful to biodiversity have been eliminated, phased out or reformed to avoid or minimise negative impacts
Priority action 2: Building ecosystem resilience in a changing climate
2.1 Protecting diversity (secure protection,private land, listed threatened species andecological communities, natural habitatcondition)
4. By 2015, achieve a national increase of600,000 km2 of native habitat managedprimarily for biodiversity conservation acrossterrestrial, aquatic and marine environments
5. By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial lands and inland waters, and 15 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity andecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed ecologicallyrepresentative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape
2.2 Maintaining and re-establishing ecosystem functions (connectivity, provision of environmental water allocations, improvedecological fire regimes)
5. By 2015, 1,000 km2 of fragmentedlandscapes and aquatic systems are beingrestored to improve ecological connectivity
6. By 2020, at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems are being restored, and areasbeing used for agriculture or pastoral production, forestry and aquaculture are beingmanaged sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity and habitat connectivity
6. By 2015, four collaborative continental-scalelinkages are established and managed toimprove ecological connectivity
7. By 2020, at least four collaborative large-scale linkages are established and managed to improve ecological connectivity, the areas of focus being determined by science-basedassessment of the capacity of sites to provide landscape-scale connectivity betweenstrictly protected areas, climate refugia and other sites of high biodiversity significance
2.3 Reducing threats to biodiversity(threatening processes, impacts of invasivespecies, early interventions to manage threats)
7. By 2015, reduce by at least 10% the impactsof invasive species on threatened species andecological communities in terrestrial, aquaticand marine environments
8. By 2020, coordinated, well-funded efforts are in place (1) to prevent the arrival of newpotentially harmful species and (2) have achieved a net reduction in the impacts ofinvasive species on threatened species and ecological communities in terrestrial, aquaticand marine environments through prevention of entry, early detection and risk-basedmanagement of control and eradication
Table 3. Relevant priority action and a comparison of proposed national targets
90
Priority action 3: Getting measurable results
ABCS 2015 National Target Proposed National Target, 2016-2020 (HSI)
3.1 Reducing threats to biodiversity (accessibilityof science and knowledge, improved alignmentof research with conservation priorities, increasedapplication of knowledge by all sectors)
8. By 2015, nationally agreed science andknowledge priorities for biodiversityconservation are guiding research activities
9. By 2020, the six priority areas for action identified within the Long-term Plan forAustralia’s Ecosystem Science have been accepted as nationally agreed science andknowledge priorities for biodiversity conservation and are guiding collaborative researchactivities, policies and programs to conserve Australia’s ecosystems
3.2 Delivering conservation initiatives efficiently(alignment with ABCS across jurisdictions,improved effectiveness and efficiency ofprograms and investments)
9. By 2015, all jurisdictions will review relevantlegislation, policies and programs to maximisealignment with the ABCS
10. By 2020, all jurisdictions will have reviewed relevant legislation, policies and programsand adopted and commenced implementation of an effective, participatory and updatedbiodiversity strategy, action plan and laws to maximise alignment with Australia’sBiodiversity Conservation Strategy within a context of retention of Commonwealthapproval powers
3.3 Implementing robust national monitoring,reporting and evaluation (national accounts,use of MERI, information use in adaptivemanagement)
10. By 2015, establish a national long-termbiodiversity monitoring and reporting system
11. By 2020 at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and localdevelopment strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into nationalaccounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems
12. By 2020, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values,functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widelyshared and transferred, and applied, using the priority areas for action identified in theLong-term Plan for Australia’s Ecosystem Science as a basis for shared information
Table 3 (continued). Relevant priority action and a comparison of proposed national targets
Conclusion
As the NRM Ministerial Council identifies in its forward to the ABCS
2010-2030, “Much effort has gone into arresting the loss of biodiversity
and conserving what is left, nevertheless, biodiversity continues to
decline… We need to take immediate and sustained action to conserve
biodiversity”.
While progress towards achievement of the national targets set in the
ABCS in 2015 has been poor, opportunities to reverse the decline are
numerous. Submissions made by HSI in April 2015 and January 2016
together provide guidance on how progress can be made in setting an
over-arching strategy commensurate with Australia’s significant place
in conserving biodiversity globally.
The proposed new set of high-level national targets and the
recommendations relating to them will guide implementation of the
Strategy in ways that enable improved biodiversity outcomes to be
effectively planned, implemented and monitored at intervals throughout
the life of the Strategy.
A diverse suite of inter-connected ecological communities rich in
biodiversity offer the best opportunity for protecting individual species
and enhancing their resilience to the pressures of human use and
climate change.
When combined with more concrete actions discussed throughout the
remainder of this policy document, particularly legislative reform, a
revised ABCS will guide governments, business and the community
together to turn around the increasing numbers of threatened species and
the growing extent of habitat loss that continues to occur in Australia.
By 2020 the Commonwealth should haveconserved at least 17% of terrestriallands and inland waters
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
91
Future Proofing Australia (through the development ofnational priorities and bioregional conservation strategies)—Bioregional Conservation Strategies Component
This is a submission developed by technical experts for Humane Society
International, to address the urgent need to improve the framework
within which nationally administered and funded biodiversity conservation
initiatives and programs are delivered. We must ensure that known
priorities efficiently and effectively drive investment in time, money and
effort at all levels of government, by all sectors of the community and,
most importantly, by landholders themselves.
To address biodiversity decline across Australia, there is an urgent need
for conservation programs and other national initiatives for sustainable
natural resource management to be focused on national biodiversity
priorities properly articulated at the regional scale. This will require
systematic assessment of the status of biodiversity, threats and the likely
investment return for the cost of implementing a mix of biodiversity
conservation and other management actions that are appropriate for
each part of the continent.
In 2016, there is clearly still a need for programs to be more strategic
and targeted to address national and consequently regional biodiversity
priorities.
Development of Bioregional Conservation StrategiesA new initiative is called for to systematically develop technical regional
biodiversity strategies for each part of Australia to inform and guide
investment decisions and particularly, to develop the most cost effective
mix of management responses to address biodiversity priorities for each
region. This would be done by developing bioregional plans pursuant to
Article 176 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act (EPBC Act).
This initiative would guide biodiversity conservation investment and
management. A technical analysis of biodiversity would provide an
evidence base on which to develop a biodiversity conservation strategy
for each of Australia’s 85 bioregions within the context of national
priorities. [HSI note: These regions are already soundly scientifically
based and defined areas for natural area and resource management.
Many of these regions cross state/territory boundaries, and the process
proposed below will enhance cooperative management of biodiversity
in those regions].
Bioregional Conservation Strategies and National PrioritiesPAUL SATTLER OAM1
92
1 Paul Sattler was the co-author/editor of the Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment
2002, published by the Commonwealth’s National Land & Water Resources Audit and the
Natural Heritage Trust.
2 Future Proofing Australia (through the development of National Priorities and Bioregional
Conservation Strategies): Bioregional Conservation Strategies Component. (2006) P. Sattler.
Report to Humane Society International.
Publishers note: HSI has continued to effectively promote a range of biodiversity policy and law initiatives over the last 20 years aimed atprioritising and giving direction to Commonwealth programs for the long-term management and protection of Australia’s megadiverse environment.
The brief text below is an edited version of that prepared by Paul Sattler forHSI a decade ago, as a part of our Future Proofing Australia2 conservationproposals, and remains as relevant today as it was then. It is essential that wehave clear and up-to-date information of species and ecological communitystatus, region by region, to permit effective recovery planning, and this canonly be achieved by a systematic and fully-funded research effort similar tothat described below.
The initiative can build on already significant investment into regional
planning and delivery, which has incorporated significant stakeholder
consultation over many years. For this reason the current proposal refers
to developing bioregional strategies as part of establishing national
priorities rather than preparing additional plans.
The bioregional and sub-regional case studies carried out by the National
Land and Water Resources Audit’s Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment
2002 provide a summary overview of some of the key parameters to
be considered. These case studies, stratified across various regions
with different management scenarios were specifically carried out
by the Audit’s partners in each state and territory to show that such
bioregional planning is possible. Moreover, it was recognised that such
planning is essential to build a business case for cost effective intervention
in biodiversity conservation. A more expansive text of some case studies
was provided on the Australian Natural Resources Atlas than that
provided in the published report.
The bioregional strategies would be science-based, technically rigorous,
pragmatic, and be developed co-operatively between state and territory
governments and the Australian Government based on existing networks
of experienced and expert conservation professionals and other
stakeholders. The pragmatic nature of this proposal is reflected by the
requirement that on average, each state and the Northern Territory
would need to produce strategies for two bioregions per year to cover
all bioregions in six years.
The development of bioregional strategies will provide the context and
framework for investment at national, state and regional levels. This is
an important aspect, as much needs to be
done to develop more effective synergy
between investment at both the Australian
Government and state and territory
government levels. Whilst it is recognised that good co-operation may
exist between governments on specific conservation actions, this is not
the same as a concerted joint effort to determine bioregional biodiversity
priorities to inform regional investment strategies across various levels
of government.
The decision of a previous Commonwealth Government, more than a
decade ago, to base marine biodiversity conservation on a bioregional
approach pursuant to s 176 of the EPBC Act provides an appropriate
precedent, especially in engaging all relevant governments, agencies
and stakeholders, particularly landholders.
This proposal has a number of elements:
1 Expert Inter-governmental Taskforce
2 Technical Bioregional Assessments
3 Cross cutting National Conservation Program Management
Expert Inter-governmental TaskforceAn expert taskforce should be established to oversee the development
of national biodiversity priorities.
This national taskforce should contain senior representatives from state
conservation agencies and representatives of the Commonwealth
Department of Environment and Energy (Chair) as well as independent
senior technical expertise. This taskforce composition is important to
The Commonwealth should establish anInter-governmental Taskforce to developnational biodiversity priorities
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
93
build support for this initiative, particularly between the Australian and
state/ territory governments and to foster subsequent recognition of
technical assessments. [HSI note: It could also contain representatives
of other scientific bodies with appropriate expertise, i.e. TERN, CSIRO,
TSSC, relevant CRCs, Ecological Society of Australia etc.]
It is envisaged that teams of conservation professionals will be established
in each state and territory in partnership with the Australian Government
to undertake rapid assessments of the biodiversity priorities in each
bioregion.
The taskforce should also consider the prioritisation of bioregions for
assessment over a six year period. Other approaches such as applying
optimisation tools to determine bioregional investment priorities can
help inform this process. Importantly, the bioregional strategies can
provide the vehicle for incorporating the results derived from specialised
assessment tools into implementation strategies.
The task of prioritising bioregions will need to be a negotiated process
taking into account national/regional priorities and existing conservation
planning initiatives. Again this iterative process will be important to build
inter-governmental support for the role out of this initiative. This job could
be quickly facilitated by the proposed taskforce. As well as considering
the nature, status and condition of biodiversity, and threatening processes,
consideration should also be given to the likely opportunities and the
cost-effectiveness of conservation management across bioregions.
[HSI note: we recommend that the assessments are prioritised to
focus on Australia’s identified 15 National Biodiversity Hotspots
https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/conservation/hotspots/
national-biodiversity-hotspots.]
The national expert inter-governmental taskforce and expert bioregional
teams could be called upon to comment on plans from the regional
bodies/committees by assessing them against the bioregional priorities
identified and provide advice to the Commonwealth Minister before
such plans are accredited.
Technical Bioregional Assessments
Much data exists on biodiversity in each bioregion across much of
Australia. A significant store of this data resides with the state and
territory conservation agencies, which have been collecting such data
for many decades. Unfortunately in many instances, this information has
not been fully utilised to inform and guide investment in biodiversity
conservation and particularly under new regional management
arrangements.
This initiative would provide the external impetus for such data to be
collated systematically, together with data held by the Australian
Government in the development of bioregional strategies. In specific
instances in poorly known parts of Australia, some limited data collection
will be necessary.
Accordingly, these strategies will be pragmatic technical assessments
based on existing data, though they should be subject to technical peer
review. These technical assessments would inform planning across a
range of regional delivery processes, e.g. regional Natural Resource
Management (NRM) bodies and local governments as well as the delivery
of conservation services by state/territory governments—where the
public consultation takes place.
94
Appropriate levels of stakeholder involvement will be necessary in the
development of bioregional strategies depending upon location, e.g. in
some bioregions consisting mostly of Aboriginal lands—significant
discussion with custodians will be needed to secure access and agreement
to the strategies being developed. The breadth of stakeholder involvement
will however, need to be balanced against the requirement to produce
pragmatic technical assessments for 85 bioregions in a cost effective
manner.
It is envisaged that more comprehensive public consultation would be
undertaken at the next stage—i.e. at the regional planning level that
these biodiversity strategies would feed into as well as through other
statutory processes such as the subsequent formulation of recovery
plans etc. which provide for stakeholder and public engagement.
Each bioregional assessment should consider:
• the status and trend of biodiversity;
• threatening processes;
• the most appropriate mix of conservation responses tailored for that
bioregion, having regard to the likely effectiveness of responses and cost;
• limiting factors and future scenarios; and
• on-going monitoring, evaluation and reporting.
It is envisaged that in assessing status and priorities, and in developing
the most appropriate mix of conservation responses for any bioregion,
strategies will include initial consideration of all conservation management
options, relating to, inter alia, consolidation and management of the
national reserve system; critical habitats (all EPBC Act Matters of
National Environmental Significance,
particularly threatened species and
ecological communities) and various
natural resource management actions,
particularly on private lands.
Bioregional teams of 4-5 experienced technical staff are envisaged to
analyse biodiversity data and threats at a sub-bioregional and site scale,
develop conservation options for biodiversity strategies including the
assessment of cost-effectiveness of various conservation opportunities,
map and report findings, and to advise on regionally relevant monitoring,
evaluation and reporting.
Analysis at the sub-bioregional scale would enable information to be
packaged for a range of regional delivery frameworks, including natural
resource management regions, catchment and local government areas.
As technical documents, these bioregional strategies could stand alone
for consideration in regional and other planning fora as distinct from
inter-government land use planning documents which would require
lengthy consultation mechanisms as part of official sign off.
Cross-cutting National Conservation Program ManagementIt is proposed that the National Expert Taskforce could initially, at least,
assist in the review of national conservation programs that specifically
cross-cut with the bioregional strategies, to assist in implementing
identified bioregional priorities across various levels of government.
This should also ensure that national priorities are addressed in regional
natural resource management plans.
Each of Australia’s 85 bioregionsshould be assessed prioritising the15 national biodiversity hotspots
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
95
Included in the overall Future Proofing proposal was a new initiative
to establish a reinvigorated national ‘stewardship payments’ funding
program for private landholders. This could build on and, importantly,
sustain the direct support being increasingly developed by regional
bodies to landholders prepared to take additional management action
to conserve biodiversity and maintain ecosystem services beyond their
duty of care. However, caution is called for to ensure that stewardship
investment is prioritised and targeted as part of proposed bioregional
strategies and that the effectiveness of management is adequately
monitored. While these aims are being partially achieved in varying
degrees under ad hoc schemes, there is a requirement for a new, coherent,
comprehensive and permanent national stewardship program that is
focussed on bioregional priorities.
[HSI note: We recommend the establishment of a Capital Funds
Conservation Program to receive capital contributions and thence
generate stewardship payments (particularly for recovery management
of listed Threatened Ecological Communities and critical habitat
management) to landholders—both for initial remedial/recovery actions
and ongoing payments to secure conservation management in perpetuity
and as payments to maintain ecosystem services—to break the cycle
of one-off or short-term payments for actions without any long term
securing of ecosystem services payments (which should be defined to
include biodiversity conservation outcomes).]
As noted earlier, assessment of priorities must be based on national
biodiversity priorities such as all EPBC Act Matters of National
Environmental Significance (threatened species, Threatened Ecological
Communities, migratory species, wetlands of international importance,
National, Commonwealth and World Heritage, and the marine
environment) and critical habitats.
In conjunction with NRM bodies, it is necessary that a program structure
be developed to achieve some permanency in staff employment and to
guide the implementation of long-term strategies. The turnover and loss
of staff that have just been trained in terms of biophysical and cultural
factors in each locality represents a loss of corporate knowledge and
weakening of biodiversity and NRM programs more generally.
Timing and BudgetBioregional assessments could be a 6 year rolling program to
systematically undertake rapid assessments for each of Australia’s
85 bioregions.
Estimated cost: $750,000 average per bioregion.
Total cost: approximately $63 million over six years (2017-2023).
Ninety percent of this funding should go to the technical assessment,
the formulation of strategies, any stakeholder consultation and extension
of the final assessments into regional processes. Inter-government
administrative costs above 10% would need to be funded separately.
[HSI note: HSI recommends that this proposal be incorporated
as an item for action under any revised `National Biodiversity
Conservation Strategy’.]
96
and colleague NGOs secured a second threatened species
population listing under NSW law for Manly’s little penguin colony
97
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
HSI
The Places You Love (PYL) alliance was established in 2012 to fight
against a proposal from the Gillard Government, inspired by the
Business Council of Australia, to gut the Federal Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) by handing decision
making powers on Matters of National Environmental Significance
to the state and territory governments.
The alliance grew quickly to become the largest ever coalition of
environment groups in Australia and achieved its original goal of stopping
the Gillard Government’s attack on environmental protection.
By 2013 it became clear that this work would need to continue as the
incoming Abbott Government promised the same “one stop shop” reform
of the EPBC Act. Throughout the recent years of the Abbott/Turnbull
Government we successfully halted this policy commitment becoming law
andtodaytheEPBCAct retains therequirement for theFederalgovernment
to make decisions on Matters of National Environmental Significance.
While fighting hard to oppose any attempts to weaken the existing laws,
we knew we had to set a forward looking agenda as well. The truth is
that the current laws are failing to fix the problems our environment faces.
In late 2014 the alliance released the Australia We Love report
(www.placesyoulove.org/australiawelove/) which brought together data
from the State of the Environment reports and many other conservative
scientific publications to determine the current state of nature in
Australia. And the findings were sobering.
The obvious conclusion was we needed a stronger set of laws and
improved performance from government, business and individuals;
laws that would also provide lasting protection for Australia’s growing
list of threatened species and places.
So, in late 2014 we established APEEL, the Australian Panel of Experts
on Environmental Law. This extraordinary group of lawyers from around
the globe were given a simple brief: what would environmental law look
like in Australia if we actually protected our natural world?
With this brief they have begun to develop the principles and governance
structures required to look after our natural resources, effectively manage
the scale and impacts of climate change, transform our energy systems
and provide Australians with real environmental democracy. We have
also included a paper on how the business community can become
integrally involved in fixing the problems.
Important questions APEEL is discussing include:
• Do we need to change the existing “cooperative federalism” approach
to environmental law and replace it with one jurisdiction taking
leadership (i.e. the Federal government)?
• Are the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) still
relevant as a basis for integrating environmental protection into law?
• How do we separate private responsibility from public and share the
burdens and benefits fairly?
• Should the right to a safe and healthy environment be established in
Australian law?
APEEL is in the final stages of producing a range of discussion papers
and undertaking a broad public consultation process. An Introductory
Paper can be found at the APEEL website, www.apeel.org.au.
Next Generation Environment LawsGLEN KLATOVSKY*
98
*Director, Places You Love Alliance [email protected]
www. placesyoulove.org.au www.apeel.org.au
This will be followed by:
1. The Next Generation of Australia’s Environmental Laws: Foundations
of Environmental Law
2. The Next Generation of Australia’s Environmental Laws:
Environmental Governance
3. The Next Generation of Australia’s Environmental Laws: Terrestrial
Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Resource Management
4. The Next Generation of Australia’s Environmental Laws: Marine and
Coastal Management
5. The Next Generation of Australia’s Environmental Laws: Climate Law
6. The Next Generation of Australia’s Environmental Laws:
Energy Regulation
7. The Next Generation of Australia’s Environmental Laws: The Private
Sector, Business Law and Environmental Performance
8. The Next Generation of Australia’s Environmental Laws:
Environmental Democracy
The fact is that we need stronger laws, not weaker ones. At best our
current laws manage the decline of nature. At worst they facilitate it.
We need a set of laws, and changes in behaviour, that place the protection
of the environment as a primary societal goal. We need a set of laws
that will ultimately conserve our endangered species and spaces.
[Note: HSI, along with The Wilderness Society, WWF and ACF CEOs, first gathered to discuss the
crisis facing national environment law in Australia in 2012, leading to the establishment of the PYL.]
We need stronger conservation lawsthat will provide lasting protection for Australia’s threatened species
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
99
Protecting Cetaceans HSI has been a vocal and uncompromising advocate for cetacean
protection in the corridors of Federal Parliament, the media and
international fora, ensuring successive Australian Governments advance
and defend whale protection measures at the International Whaling
Commission and other international gatherings.
One of our prime tools in the whale protection campaign has been
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(EPBC Act). One of the key benefits of the passage of that Act for
cetaceans was the establishment of the Australian Whale Sanctuary in
Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) adjacent to the Australian
Antarctic Territory. The Act also made it an offence for Australians to
harm whales anywhere in the world.
The coming into force of the EPBC Act paved the way for some key
Australian court cases against Japan and its whaling company,
in which HSI was a lead NGO player.
Action at The HagueMeanwhile, on the global stage, 31 March, 2014 will go down as an
historic day for conservation. The United Nations International Court
of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, by a majority of 12 to 4, decided that by
killing whales in Antarctic waters “for purposes of scientific research”
Japan was in breach of the global whaling moratorium and called on
Japan to cease whaling in the Southern Ocean immediately. In other
words Japan was acting illegally and the ICJ ordered Japan to revoke
all whaling permits for the JARPA II program. Japan had stated that
it would abide by the ruling, but has since made efforts to prevent any
future challenges under the ICJ, informing the United Nations Secretary
General in 2015 that the court’s jurisdiction “does not apply to ... any
dispute arising out of, concerning, or relating to research on, or
conservation, management or exploitation of, living resources of the sea”.
HSI had first raised the potential of taking action against Japan in the
ICJ with the Australian Government in 2000, following an article in an
Australian law review journal by HSI’s Kitty Block and Lee Steffy Jenkins,
advocating the use of the ICJ. Commonwealth Environment Minister
Robert Hill led the Australian Delegation to the International Whaling
Commission (IWC) meeting that year in Adelaide, and advising him
officially on delegation was HSI’s Nicola Beynon.
It was at this meeting that Australia formally raised the prospect of taking
Japan to the ICJ. Beynon vividly recalls that when Australia had finished
its presentation the Japanese Commissioner to the IWC responded
strongly to the effect, “Bring it on!” After that day, Beynon recalls,
“HSI never let up on the Government to come good on the threat!”
Ground-breaking legislative action in AustraliaSome four years after the 2000 Adelaide meeting, continuing to pile
on the political pressure, HSI brought its first legal action in the Federal
Court against the Japanese whaling company, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha
Ltd (Kyodo), for slaughtering minke, humpback and fin whales in
Australia’s Antarctic Whale Sanctuary. Our case was ably prepared by
the Environmental Defenders Office in NSW (EDO NSW) and expertly
prosecuted in court by Stephen Gageler SC and Barrister Chris McGrath.
A number of court appearances (including an appeal) and three years
Marine Species Program ReviewEDITOR, ALEXIA WELLBELOVE*
100
*HSI Senior Program Manager
after first stepping into court, on 15 January, 2008, HSI won its battle
against Kyodo. Federal Court Judge, Justice James Allsop declared the
company’s whaling activities in Antarctica to be in breach of Australian
law and ordered a court injunction instructing the hunt to be stopped.
The judgement helped erode the Japanese Government’s tenuous claims
that the hunt was legitimate. The first guilty verdict!
Japan however didn’t comply with the Federal Court injunction as they
did not recognise Australia’s territorial claims over Antarctic waters.
Hence, HSI stepped up its lobbying campaign and began to explore a
‘contempt of court’ action against Kyodo for continuing to kill whales in
Australian Antarctic waters, while continuing to urge the Commonwealth
Government to enforce the injunction.
Meanwhile, the fearless actions of the Sea Shepherd Conservation
Society in the Southern Ocean saw crew members board a Japanese
whaling vessel, in part attempting to deliver the HSI court injunction
papers, while HSI had earlier personally delivered the court papers to
the Kyodo whaling company’s offices in Tokyo.
Nonetheless, the successful Federal Court action helped bring
considerable political and public pressure on the Australian Government,
along with pressure from many other NGOs, to go to the International
Court of Justice, which it finally did, commencing its application in 2010,
and of course, eventually providing a second guilty verdict!
After a number of years of slow preparation, not wanting to jeopardise
Australia’s case at the ICJ by taking concurrent legal action, HSI filed an
application for ‘contempt of court’ against Kyodo in the Australian
Federal Court in late 2015.
But this time, the Federal Court took just
two hours and not three years to reach a
decision. Justice Jayne Jagot spent very
little time deliberating before finding
against Kyodo, determining that they were indeed in contempt of the
Australian courts. She found that Kyodo’s conduct in breach of the
injunction was “deliberate, systematic and sustained”, and that she was
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Kyodo had killed tens, if not
hundreds of whales over four separate annual whaling campaigns in
breach of the EPBC Act and the 2008 Federal Court injunction.
In penalising Kyodo, Justice Jagot said $1 million reflected the “serious
nature of the breaches”, and that the amount of the fine was intended
to “denounce Kyodo’s conduct” as well as to act as a deterrent to other
whaling vessels. This was the very first ‘contempt of court’ case under
the EPBC Act and the largest fine ever handed down under the Act…
a third guilty verdict!
The court action was a success once more in no small part because of the
bullet-proof case prepared and presented by EDO NSW and legal counsel,
Jeremy Kirk SC and Barrister James Hutton. Justice Jagot complemented
the legal team for its thorough case development. We are now planning
to return to the Federal Court in an effort to gain permission to seize any
of Kyodo’s whaling vessels that might be forced to venture into Australia’s
ports for emergency reasons.
HSI is pursuing its fifth legalaction in the Federal courtsagainst Japanese whalers
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
101
Further conservation actionHSI has always fielded a strong team at annual meetings of the
International Whaling Commission wherever they occur, where we are
normally an adviser on Australian Government delegations—working
to ensure the moratorium on commercial whaling remains intact and
successfully fighting off pro-whaling state killing proposals. In 2005
HSI’s Nicola Beynon was interviewed for an exposé of Japanese vote
buying at the IWC by the ABC’s Four Corners program, for which HSI
provided much of the background.
We have also been successful at the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species (CITES) working with governments like Australia
to fend off moves from pro-whaling countries to downgrade bans on
international trade in whale products, and working through the Convention
on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).
We were a member of the Australian Government delegation that
achieved protection for the orca and six species of great whale under
the Convention for Migratory Species which in turn led to a regional
agreement to conserve marine mammals in the South Pacific.
Our scientific nomination work led to new legal protection for the fin
and sei whales under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 and
consequently the EPBC Act, which required the Federal Government to
implement national recovery plans for these species. HSI also worked
on drafting these plans as well as those for humpback, blue and southern
right whales as a member of the National Whale Recovery Team.
This work is complemented by ongoing campaigns for cetacean habitat
protection, epitomised by the declaration of the Australian Whale
Sanctuary and our promotion of the need for specific area protections,
highlighted in a publication by HSI and WWF in 2010 titled ‘Protecting
Critical Marine Habitats—The Key to Conserving our Threatened Marine
Species’. This work indicated the locations essential for the effective
protection of critical habitats for the southern right, blue and humpback
whales, and snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins. We have also
sought further protection for the Australian Whale Sanctuary as a National
Heritage place under Commonwealth law. HSI continues to advocate
for strong mitigation to prevent the bycatch of dolphins in Australian
fisheries, most recently in the South Australian sardine fishery.
102
Jeremy Kirk SC, James Hutton, Michael Kennedy (HSI Director)
and Stacey Ella (EDO Solicitor)
In November 2015 the Federal Court of Australia fined a Japanese
whaling company $1 million for breaching an order requiring it to stop
whaling in the Australian Whale Sanctuary. Despite this landmark win,
the company announced in December that its ships were headed to
the Southern Ocean to start the 2015/2016 summer whaling season
under Japan’s controversial new ‘scientific’ whaling program. It’s likely
the company will kill whales in the Sanctuary.
What is the significance of this case? How can the whaling continue
despite the Court’s decision? And what effect does this decision have?
About the caseIn November 2015, the Federal Court of Australia found that Japanese
whaling company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (Kyodo) was guilty of four
counts of contempt of Court. Kyodo had breached a 2008 order of the
Court requiring the company to stop whaling in the Australian Whale
Sanctuary (the Sanctuary) off the coast of Antarctica.
EDO NSW, on behalf of our client Humane Society International Australia
(HSI), presented evidence to the Court that Kyodo had whaled in the
Sanctuary in four separate whaling seasons since it was ordered to stop
in 2008.
The Court accepted our evidence, and fined Kyodo $250,000 for each
of the four seasons in which Kyodo breached the 2008 order.
What is the significance of this case?This case is legally significant for a number of reasons.
First, it is the first time that a fine has been imposed in contempt
proceedings brought to protect biodiversity under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
Second, it is the largest fine in any contempt proceedings in Australian
history, and the largest fine ever imposed in Court proceedings under
national environmental law.
Third, and perhaps most significantly, the decision establishes a legal
precedent for future biodiversity protection cases. Companies or
individuals who might contemplate similar breaches of court orders
under the EPBC Act or other environmental protection legislation will
now be aware that the Court views such breaches to be very serious
and will hopefully be deterred from committing such breaches.
The Court imposed the fine on the day of the hearing. It was completely
unexpected that the Court would find in our favour so quickly and deliver
a decision on the spot.
What effect does the Court’s decision have?In December 2015, EDO NSW arranged for the contempt orders to
be served on Kyodo—this involved having the orders and evidence
delivered in person and also by post to Kyodo’s offices in Tokyo, Japan.
The court ruling in November was the result of an 11 year fight for HSI
and EDO NSW. Now that this significant milestone has been reached,
what happens next?
Generally speaking, enforcing an Australian court’s decision outside
of Australia is difficult. In this case it is extremely difficult for a number
of reasons.
Though the Australian government has a claim over territories in
Antarctica, which allows it to make laws to protect whales in the
$1m fine for whaling company: Why is it so significant?BY STACEY ELLA*
104
*Solicitor, EDO NSW
This article was originally published on the EDO NSW website on January 18th, 2016.
Sanctuary, Japan does not recognise Australia’s claim over those
territories. The Australian government has also signed an international
treaty stating that it will not enforce its claim over its Antarctic territories
against any other country, including Japan.
As Japan does not recognise Australia’s claim over these Antarctic
territories, it also does not recognise the Australian laws protecting whales
in the Sanctuary. The effect of this is that Kyodo, as a Japanese company
with permits for whaling issued by the Japanese government, does not
recognise the Federal Court’s jurisdiction over the Sanctuary and is likely
to continue to disregard the orders of the Court requiring it to stop
whaling in the Sanctuary.
Despite these difficulties, we are seeking further advice on behalf of HSI
on possible alternative enforcement measures.
The international context
It’s important to note that the Federal Court’s fine is not related to a
decision made by the International Court of Justice in 2014 that Japan’s
whaling program is illegal.
In purely legal terms, the whaling program is not illegal under international
law. That’s because after the ICJ’s decision, the Japanese government
simply changed the wording of its agreement on its obligations to the
Court—the agreement now excludes ‘any dispute arising out of,
concerning, or relating to research on, or conservation, management or
exploitation of, living resources of the sea.’ It also relabelled its whaling
program, though in substance the program remained the same.
This rewording prevents any further
disputes on Japan’s whaling program from
being brought before the International
Court of Justice.
A growing voice of condemnationDespite the whaling program continuing, the $1m fine is an important
milestone in our long-running legal battle.
The Federal Court’s decision sends a strong message to the Japanese
government and the international community—it reaffirms the Australian
legal position in the ongoing international condemnation of Japan’s
‘scientific’ whaling program.
“I do not see that [the fine] as in any way excessive,having regard to the serious nature of the breaches whichthe applicant has established” – Justice Jagot
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
105
One very important motivation for supporting the passage of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC
Act) was to see the introduction of environmental impact assessments
for Australia’s fisheries for the first time in the history of fisheries and
environmental management.
As a result all Commonwealth fisheries and all Commonwealth, state
and territory export fisheries now have to be approved by the Federal
Environment Minister against standards for ecological sustainability
and the protection of at risk species. This process has been widely
credited with levering significant improvements in the way Australia’s
fisheries are managed and the process is ongoing. With bycatch an
ongoing issue, most approvals are subject to regular review when
further improvements are sought by HSI.
The threat now is that the Commonwealth government and its fisheries
agency, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) want
to wrestle back control of these fisheries’ environmental assessments,
and HSI has been engaged in a campaign to oppose such a move.
HSI takes on Australia’s biggest fisheryThe EPBC Act also gave third parties the power to challenge the merits
of the Commonwealth Environment Minister’s decisions to approve
export through the courts. HSI made full use of these powers (until they
were revoked by the Commonwealth Environment Minister in 2006)
bringing two cases against the Federal government for approving the
Commonwealth Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT) Fishery and Australia’s
biggest fishery, the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and
Shark Fishery (SESSF). Increasing concern for the negative effects of
this fishery (and in particular albatross deaths) caused HSI to instigate
a legal challenge against the Commonwealth Environment Minister and
AFMA in the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal. HSI successfully
argued the legal case against the adequacy of the conditions the Minister
had attached to the original fisheries approval. HSI settled the case over
the SESSF through out-of-court negotiations which resulted in nine new
and stronger environmental conditions being added to the Minister’s
approval, including three new mandatory conditions for the protection
of albatross species, requiring protective measures for Harrison’s dogfish
(Centrophorus harrissoni), eastern gemfish (Rexea solandri), Australian
sea lions (Neophoca cinerea) and requirements for more statistically
robust observer coverage of the fishery. The court action also eventually
led to a number of fishery closures over large areas, where protected
species bycatch limits were exceeded.
Acknowledging the cumulative impact the SESSF was having on the
marine ecosystem of southern and eastern Australia, HSI nominated the
entire fishery as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the EPBC Act
in 2005.
And the southern bluefin tuna industryOur case against the Minister’s approval for the Southern Bluefin Tuna
Fishery, though a critically endangered species at 3-8% of its pre-fishing
biomass, was less successful. Depressingly, the Tribunal was persuaded
by the government’s argument that Australia had to carry on overfishing
southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) in order to participate in the
negotiations over international management of the species at the
Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT).
Fisheries and Fisheries Bycatch: Policy and Management
106
An argument for which HSI knew there is no justifiable legal basis and
an opinion not supported by international law experts.
The loss in court over SBT is symptomatic of our long struggle to gain
due legal protection for the critically endangered and highly lucrative
southern bluefin tuna in the face of strong commercial interests. Repeated
nominations to have the species listed as endangered under state and
Commonwealth law were continually rejected on grounds HSI considered
purely political, until finally in 2004 the NSW Fisheries Minister agreed
to a listing under the NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994. We were
also successful in gaining protection for the SBT under the Victorian
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.
The Commonwealth has always been prepared to go to extraordinary
lengths to protect the SBT industry despite the best available science.
Even before HSI challenged the SBT export plan in the Federal Court,
the government’s own Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC)
under the EPBC Act had determined that the SBT was an “endangered”
species, following an HSI nomination. The Minister simply chose to ignore
his own legislative and conservation obligations, but in November 2010
the SBT was listed as Conservation Dependent (CD) under the EPBC
Act in an attempt by HSI to ensure some protection for this species
under Commonwealth law.
HSI also came close to persuading the Commonwealth government
to seek international protection for the SBT at the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES). Following an effective working relationship with HSI, the then
Federal Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill, was set to launch a
campaign for a CITES SBT listing, but was
pipped to the post (and in Cabinet) by the
less keen Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry who launched an
international court case against Japan over SBT quotas which prevented
the CITES nomination going forward.
HSI is one of only three NGOs to secure observer status at the CCSBT
and we continue to attend the annual meetings to argue for quotas to
be set at levels that would allow the species to recover—with all the
scientific evidence pointing to the need for a complete respite from
fishing for this to ever be achieved. In 2009 a small reduction in the
global quota was agreed, and in 2011 a Management Procedure was
agreed to determine future quotas and start to rebuild the stock. Further
quota increases have since taken place in 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2015 in
line with the Management Procedure. According to the Management
Procedure the quota will continue to increase in 2016, which it subsequently
did. HSI has fought these increases without associated mandatory
mitigation measures to reduce albatross bycatch, so far unsuccessfully,
as we calculate that one albatross is killed each year for every two tonnes
of southern bluefin tuna caught, meaning that any increase in quota will
mean hundreds more albatross deaths every year.
Patagonian toothfishIn the case of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoi), HSI spear -
headed a campaign funded by the Packard Foundation and in cooperation
with TRAFFIC, WWF and Austral Fisheries (who fished for Patagonian
toothfish legitimately) were able to instigate and back a 2002 Australian
government nomination for Patagonian toothfish to be listed at CITES,
HSI took on Australia’s largestexport fishery in the courts
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
107
as a way to curb the rampant illegal poaching for the species in the
Southern Ocean. The nomination, predictably controversial in that it
would have been the first major commercial fish listed at CITES, was
pulled on the floor of the meeting due to lack of support. HSI also
prepared a nomination to list the toothfish under the EPBC Act which
was rejected in 2009.
However, the Australian Government did secure a decision from CITES
putting pressure on the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to do more to combat poaching
more successfully. This proved very beneficial for the waters around
incredible Sub-Antarctic wonderlands like World Heritage listed
Macquarie Island, home to Endangered species of albatross that fall
victim to the poachers’ longlines. HSI contributed to the campaign
that saw a large sector of the waters around Macquarie Island closed
to fishing. HSI consultant Alistair Graham, a long-time investigator of
toothfish poaching operations, is a regular adviser on the Australian
government delegation to annual CCAMLR meetings.
First conservation listing for a commercial fish—the orange roughyOrange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) is another over-fished species
that has benefited from HSI advocacy. It was the first very commercial
fish listed as threatened under the EPBC Act in 2006, following an HSI
nomination in 2003, albeit in the Conservation Dependent category
which gives the lowest level of protection and allows fishing to continue.
The listing did require a recovery strategy to be put in place for the
species, and stronger intervention from the Commonwealth Environment
Minister in management. This and a strong public campaign for the
108
The ISOFISH initiative
While on Australian government
delegation duty at CCAMLR in
1997, representing the conservation
movement, HSI’s Alistair Graham
first conceived and then subsequently
launched a major NGO/industry
initiative called ISOFISH (International
Southern Oceans Longline Fisheries
Information Clearing House). Its aim
was to expose toothfish poaching as
a major threat to both commercial fish stocks and albatross
populations. The project was a huge success and drove heightened
interest by governments, international NGOs and the fishing
industry, and made Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
(IUU) a famous acronym around the world. HSI was extremely
privileged to be a member of the ISOFISH Board. The project led
directly to the development of an International Plan of Action to
eliminate IUU fishing by governments through the UN Food and
Agricultural Organisation.
Alistair has been a 40 year champion for the oceans and all its
creatures, and his work was recognised with an Australia Day
Medal in 2008. He was also nominated for the internationally
prestigious ‘Goldman Prize’ for his work with ISOFISH.
species by HSI and our colleagues, helped ensure orange roughy quotas
were dramatically reduced. HSI also campaigned hard for the protection
of the Tasmanian Seamounts, a marine biodiversity hotspot and core
habitat for orange roughy, to be declared a Marine Protected Area, and
gained National Heritage listing under the EPBC Act following an HSI
nomination. AFMA reopened this fishery in 2015 due to data suggesting
that the stock has recovered.
Eastern population of gemfishFollowing in the wake of orange roughy, the eastern gemfish (Rexea
solandri) was listed on the EPBC Act in 2009 as Conservation Dependent
as a result of an HSI nomination. For many years HSI was a member of
the NSW Eastern Gemfish Assessment Group arguing for an end to its
over-exploitation. HSI has also made two attempts to list the eastern
gemfish in 1999 and 2005 under the NSW Fisheries Management Act
1994 but both were subsequently rejected. In 2014 however a proposed
NSW Scientific Committee determination to list the eastern gemfish as
Vulnerable under the Fisheries Management Act was proposed, which
HSI strongly supported. The results of this consultation are still awaited.
School shark
In 2009 the school shark (Galeorhinus galeus) was also listed on the EPBC
Act as Conservation Dependent following an HSI nomination in 2003.
HSI is extremely concerned however with the recent AFMA decision to
re-open the orange roughy and school shark fisheries in southern and
eastern Australia. Both the orange roughy and school shark are long-
lived species, with a late sexual maturity and low recruitment rates. They
are particularly vulnerable to over fishing and both species are recognised
as globally threatened. With some recent studies conducted by CSIRO,
Australian populations of orange roughy are believed to be showing
some recovery since their closures in 2005 due to heavy over fishing in
Australia in the mid 1980s.
HSI finds it disturbing that AFMA have decided to issue quotas for these
species at the first sign of improvement, with annual quotas for orange
roughy now set at 500 tonnes. HSI believes that a strong precautionary
approach must be taken with these recovering populations to allow for
full recovery before considering renewing commercial quotas.
Gulper sharksIn addition to our work on CITES and the Convention on Migratory Species
(CMS) for gulper sharks, HSI has also been very much engaged in the
process to have this family of sharks—Harrison’s dogfish (Centrophorus
harrissoni) and the southern dogfish (Centrophorus zeehaani)—listed as
Conservation Dependent under the EPBC Act in 2013, participating in
the development of a management plan and discussions of required
closed areas to ensure their protection.
The successful listing under endangered species laws for the southern
bluefin tuna, eastern gemfish, orange roughy, school fish and gulper
sharks may, to the best of our knowledge, represent the first listings of
commercially exploited marine fish anywhere in the world, beginning
in 2006.
Tuna Bycatch CompendiumHSI took the opportunity to lobby all the tuna Regional Fisheries
Management Organisations (RFMOs) when they came together in one
HSI secured the very first listings of commercially important fish speciesunder threatened species laws
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
109
room for the very first time in Australia (Brisbane) in June 2010 for a
joint Tuna RFMO Bycatch Working Group. HSI and partner organisations
campaigned for the same strong mitigation measures to be adopted
consistently by all the tuna RFMOs. Over the past 20 years HSI has
concentrated its efforts on the CCSBT because of its particularly serious
bycatch problem with seabirds and sharks, sending our own
representatives to meetings in all corners of the Earth.
Following the Brisbane meeting HSI collaborated with a number of NGOs
(including WWF and TRAFFIC) to produce a critical compendium of best
practice conservation and management measures to address the impacts
of species bycatch in tuna RFMOs, covering seabirds, sharks, sea turtles
and marine mammals. The report, titled ‘A Compendium of Conservation
and Management Measures to address the impacts of species bycatch
in tuna RFMOs’, has been widely presented at national and international
fisheries meetings, including the Western Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission and the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI). We continue
to promote the compendium at all RFMO meetings.
Fisheries policy workWith a strong focus on bycatch issues throughout HSI’s work, it was
only sensible that in 2012 we would get involved in the Review of the
Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch and the Review of the
Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy. In doing this work
HSI collaborated closely with WWF Australia, Australian Marine
Conservation Society (AMCS) and TRAFFIC, contracting specialist
consultants to assist in pulling together substantive submissions to each
of the consultations. In addition, HSI and TRAFFIC sat as the two NGO
representatives on the stakeholder group reviewing the bycatch policy,
and WWF and AMCS as the two NGO representatives on the harvest
strategy policy stakeholder group, working together to ensure our
positions were aligned and reflected in all discussions.
This strategy worked well, and it was noted that our submissions and
input were some of the more detailed put into these processes. In
addition our four organisations also submitted detailed comments into
the Review of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Fisheries
Administration Act 1991 (the Borthwick Review). Subsequent to the
publication of the results from these review processes, and with a change
in Government, HSI is still waiting to find out next steps, but we plan to
continue to engage in this important issue. It is expected that these
policies will be taken forward by the new Government in 2017.
Campaign to stop the super trawler More recently HSI has lobbied hard with other NGOs against the
introduction into Australian waters of a new “super trawler” first proposed
in 2012 to fish the Small Pelagic Fishery. Concerned about the impacts
of such a vessel, in particular the effect upon seabirds and marine
mammals due to their bycatch, HSI joined forces with a number of other
conservation and recreational fishing groups to form the ‘Stop the Trawler
Alliance’. This led to a temporary, two year ban on large freezer trawlers
whilst a review was undertaken to examine these impacts. HSI provided
substantial evidence on the potential bycatch of such trawlers, particularly
if the freezer trawler was used as a mothership. Seabirds, seals, sea-lions
and dolphins are all species that could potentially be impacted by this
fishing effort. Despite assurance from AFMA and boat owners, several
albatrosses and dolphins were killed in early 2016, with the ship aborting its
voyage and heading back to port as a result. HSI responded vigorously in
the press and we continue to lobby against the operation of this vessel
together with colleagues as part of the Stop the Trawler Alliance.
110
being Critically Endangered theHSI nominated southern bluefin
tuna is heavily exploited
Despite
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
111
Protecting albatross, petrels and other seabirds has been one of HSI’s
great passions, and we have made considerable progress over the last
22 years for this group of giant marine wanderers, bringing to the
attention of all Australians the plight of one of the most endangered
birds on the planet. We have been at the forefront of political lobbying
for the protection of these magnificent birds for a long time and our
commitment remains as strong as ever.
HSI achieved the first national protection for an albatross species
when our nomination in 1994 for the wandering albatross (Diomedea
exulans) resulted in the species being listed as Vulnerable to extinction
under the Commonwealth’s Endangered Species Protection Act 1992
(ESPA) and subsequently the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This was followed by HSI nominations
for the black- browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophrys), shy albatross
(Thalassarche cauta cauta) and sooty albatross (Phoebetria fusca).
The nominations for these threatened albatross species triggered a review
of the conservation status of all albatross species which subsequently
led to protective listings for 14 albatross species (see Table 1 on page 116).
The Tasmanian and New South Wales governments also agreed to
undertake similar reviews. Albatross listings were also achieved by HSI
under other state threatened laws (see Table 1 on page 116).
The listings required the development of a national recovery plan for
threatened albatross and petrels. HSI played a key role in the recovery
team that drafted and oversaw the implementation of the first 2001
recovery plan, and we were also involved in the two subsequent revisions,
the first in 2009 which lead to the development of the 2011-2016 plan
and the second in 2016 from which we await a revised recovery plan.
Our nomination program also secured the consequential listing and
protection of 5 ‘critical habitats’ for 3 species of albatross that breed in
Australia through the EPBC Act Critical Habitat Register (these were the
very first EPBC critical habitat listings under national legislation; see
map on page 113).
HSI scientific nominations also secured national protection for the southern
and northern giant petrels under the EPBC Act and some state laws.
Responding to revelations first globally exposed by renowned seabird
scientist Nigel Brothers (see box on page 117) that longline fishing was
killing tens of thousands of albatross and petrels, HSI nominated this
fishing technique for listing as a ‘Key Threatening Process’ (Incidental
catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations)
in 1995 under the ESPA. The nomination was also made under state
legislation. The nomination was successful and Australia’s first national
Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) to mitigate the effects of longline fishing
on seabirds was published under the ESPA in 1998.
Having a national plan to address this threat was also a world first,
and HSI has been the one consistent NGO representative on the Threat
Abatement Team negotiating improved mitigation methods with the
longline industry and fisheries managers over the last 18 years. A revised
edition of the 1998 TAP, implemented under the EPBC Act since 2000,
was published in 2006 and further revised in 2014. With the current TAP
due to sunset in early 2017 HSI is now working hard on ensuring a new
TAP is in place without delay. The TAP has achieved a significant reduction
in albatross and petrel deaths in Australia’s longline fisheries, with the
Australian Antarctic Division in 2010 estimating that the albatross and petrel
bycatch in Australia had reduced by 90% in the previous 5 to 7 years,
although zero albatross deaths in such fisheries remains our ultimate goal.
Protecting Seabirds
112
The trawling threatWith the threat of longline fishing starting to come under better control,
new evidence was emerging to show that trawling was overtaking it as
a key threat in Australian waters. The Federal Bureau of Rural Sciences
assessments estimated that the Commonwealth trawl sector killed 250
black-browed albatrosses and 861 shy albatrosses in 2006 (compared
with a total figure of 53 killed by Commonwealth longline fleets).
It became clear that trawl fishers operating around the Heard and
Macdonald Island World Heritage site were also killing albatrosses, with
HSI calling for immediate mitigation action (while HSI had also been
vigorously opposing proposed longline fishing operations around
World Heritage Macquarie Island).
In part response to pressure from HSI to the trawling dilemma, where
birds are killed by the warp cables the trawl nets hang from, in November
2011 AFMA made it compulsory for every vessel in the problematic trawl
sectors to have a Seabird Management Plan. This required vessels to take
action to mitigate against seabird bycatch.
By far the best solution to seabird bycatch during trawling operations is
to stop throwing offal over the side of the boat. It is the one simple, cost
effective and proven mitigation measure to prevent albatross mortality.
It removes the attraction of the boat as a source of food. HSI has
consistently advocated strongly for this measure but AFMA and the
fishing industry have so far refused to take this absolutely necessary step
and make the retention of offal mandatory. HSI continues to pressure
AFMA to take further action to ensure that the number of seabird deaths
in trawl fisheries is reduced urgently. In late 2016 AFMA is planning to
develop a Protected Species Strategy for seabirds which HSI hopes
will ensure faster progress is made on seabird bycatch across all
Australian fisheries.
International action HSI was quick to promote this ground-breaking threat mitigation
initiative around the world and conveyed information about the TAP
to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) who
in 1998 were in the process of drafting an international ‘Plan of Action’
for reducing seabird mortality in longline fishing. We have continued to
press the Australian Government for a National Plan of Action for Seabirds
(NPOA Seabirds) ever since. We are pleased to report that in 2016 the
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources commenced the
development of the NPOA Seabirds as a direct result of HSI’s advocacy
efforts. HSI is a key stakeholder involved in the development of this plan
which is due to be finalised by early 2017.
We also informed the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea
(DOALOS) in New York, which was the Secretariat for the UN Straddling
Fish Stocks Agreement, of our seabird bycatch concerns. The Secretary-
General of DOALOS was at the time preparing a report on international
and national fisheries and fisheries bycatch problems. HSI had further
suggested that the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) consider
developing a protocol on reducing seabird bycatch, preceded potentially by
a resolution under the CBDs Article 5 (areas beyond national jurisdiction).
Another opportunity to address many countries on longline fishing
together in one room was provided to us by former Federal Environment
Minister Robert Hill, when he was Australia’s Ambassador to the United
Nations. In 2011, he invited around 80 fellow UN Ambassadors to a
luncheon at Australia’s Consulate in New York, where Hollywood star
Sigourney Weaver and HSI’s Alistair Graham (with help from Birdlife
International) addressed the meeting on the plight of the world’s oceans,
outlining specific measures countries should be taking to protect
albatrosses. Alistair Graham’s talk was backed up with albatross film
114
Achieved the very first protectionfor an albatross species underFederal threatened species laws
footage provided by Australian documentary producer Greg Grainger,
and the presentation helped gain many international friends in the fight
to save the albatross.
Migratory species conventionSeeking to further export the progress Australia has made on albatross
conservation, HSI worked closely with the Australian Government to see
the listing of 14 albatross species under the Convention on Migratory
Species (CMS) in 1997 (see Table 1 on page 116). Australia subsequently
took the lead, through the ‘Valdivia Group’ (a coalition of southern
hemisphere nations) in pursuing special “regional agreements” under the
CMS, and at the 6th meeting of the conference of the parties to CMS in
Cape Town in 1999, Australia successfully proposed a Resolution calling for
a Regional Agreement to protect albatrosses of the Southern Hemisphere,
with support from HSI and other NGOs. The HSI triggered longline TAP and
the draft Recovery Plan for Albatross and Petrels were widely distributed
to nations at the meeting, highlighting best practice standards.
These negotiations and other efforts championed by Australia led to the
establishment of the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and
Petrels (ACAP) under the auspices of CMS in 2004. ACAP is now in its
12th year with 13 member countries cooperating to conserve 31 species
of albatrosses, petrels and shearwaters. HSI continues to actively engage
in ACAP meetings attending these annually, including the Seabird
Bycatch Working Group.
Regional fisheries managementHSI is one of the three conservation NGOs granted permanent observer
status at the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna
(CCSBT), a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) that
oversees an appallingly high death toll of albatross species in the longline
fishing fleets under its auspices, estimated to kill many thousands of
albatrosses every year. We are working to persuade the member countries
to agree to mandatory measures to weight their lines so that they sink
out of the reach of the birds faster, or set their lines at night when fewer
birds are foraging. HSI staff have been attending CCSBT meetings and
working groups around the world for two decades, pushing hard for
further critical changes to line weighting, and the introduction of effective
compliance and reporting mechanisms. This has included attending
meetings of the CCSBT Ecologically Related Species Working Group,
sometimes jointly funded by the SBT Industry Association.
The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
(CCAMLR) is one RFMO that has proven it is possible to longline without
having to kill albatrosses and other seabirds. CCAMLR has been managing
to achieve minimal to zero albatross bycatch for many consecutive years
showing what can be done with sufficient political will and technical
know-how, testament to the remarkable work of many marine biologists
working with the fishing industry, instigated by HSI’s Nigel Brothers.
HSI’s Alistair Graham has been at the forefront of the campaign within
CCAMLR to reduce and stop seabird bycatch, including the terrible
damage done by illegal longline fishers chasing Patagonian toothfish
in CCAMLR waters. Alistair has been the NGO representative on the
Australian Delegation to CCAMLR for many years and in 1997 established
ISOFISH (International Southern Oceans Longline Fisheries Information
Clearing House) to successfully fight illegal tooth fishers in the region
(see box on page 108).
HSI has also supported strong conservation efforts to protect seabirds
via its membership of the ASOC (Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition)
Council and Board.
We are still a long way from ensuring that seabird bycatch is a thing of the
past. There are still extremely serious problems with both domestic and
international fisheries activities which will require HSI’s continued vigilance.
Helped protect dozens of albatrossand petrel species under state,national and international law
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
115
116
Common name CMS EPBC RP TAP
Antipodean albatross II V • •
Tristan albatross II E • •
Southern royal albatross II V • •
Wandering albatross II V • •
Gibson's albatross ACAP V • •
Northern royal albatross II E • •
Sooty albatross II V • •
Grey-headed albatross II E • •
Buller's albatross II V • •
Indian yellow-nosed albatross ACAP V • •
Shy albatross II V • •
Chatham albatross II E • •
Campbell albatross ACAP V • •
Black-browed albatross II V • •
Salvin's albatross II V • •
Amsterdam albatross I E • •
White-capped albatross ACAP V • •
Atlantic yellow-nosed albatross II • •
Common name CMS EPBC RP TAP
Light mantled albatross II • •
Black footed albatross II
Laysan albatross II • •
Waved albatross II
Short-tailed albatross I
White-chinned petrel I •
White-bellied storm-petrel V
Northern giant petrel II V • •
Southern giant petrel II E • •
Great-winged petrel •
Grey petrel II •
Wedge-tailed shearwater •
Flesh-footed shearwater •
Sooty shearwater •
Short-tailed shearwater •
Southern skua •
Westland petrel II •
Black petrel II •
Table 1. Albatross and petrel species listed on CMS/ACAP treaties—HSI was fully
involved in the successful global NGO campaigns to see these species protected.
EPBC = EPBC Act; RP = Recovery Plan; TAP = Threat Abatement Plan
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
117
Protecting albatross in Peru and Ecuador
HSI has been lucky enough to have
the expert advice of Nigel Brothers in
helping us pursue the implementation
of effective mitigation devices in
Australia and around the world for
many years now. As an internationally
renowned seabird scientist, Nigel
exposed the fact that longline fishing
techniques were killing tens of
thousands of albatross and petrels
every year, and remains instrumental in reducing its effects
around the world.
Initially teaming up with the Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna
Industry Association, HSI helped fund a project in Peru and Ecuador
that took Nigel Brothers around the ports for the massive artisanal
fishing fleets (some 20,000 boats) talking to fishermen about the
adoption of bird friendly measures as they begin the process of
upgrading to industrial scale vessels.
HSI has been working with Nigel on this project since 2010, in
collaboration with the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) to assist
local NGO groups to work with fishermen to develop and implement
changes to fishing gear and practices, in order to avoid the incidental
bycatch of the endangered waved albatross, pink-footed shearwater,
Parkinson’s petrel and other seabirds and marine turtles as well as
cetaceans. Many species at risk on this coast also have breeding
grounds in the Australasian region.
In 2013, Nigel and his colleagues finally discovered a way to prevent
the deaths of critically endangered albatrosses, shearwaters and
petrels in the artisanal longline fisheries.
A novel device has been invented which allows the fishermen to
set their longline hooks for hake much more safely and considerably
faster—so fast in fact that there isn’t enough time for seabirds to
get caught. The new system will be popular with fishermen not just
because it helps to save birds, but because it enables them to now
do what is traditionally a difficult, dangerous and time consuming
job, safely and with ease.
Simplicity is the secret of the fast setting device which can be
constructed at very little expense, from a combination of two long
PVC pipes in a special configuration carefully cut from end to end,
enabling hundreds of baited hooks to be kept in the correct setting
sequence. This allows the fishermen to set his line at 13 knots
compared to the conventional 5 knots.
Efforts are continuing in several other fisheries of Ecuador and
neighbouring countries to prevent waved albatrosses and pink-
footed shearwaters along with many other seabird species being
killed, and the break-through in Ecuador demonstrates that this
is truly achievable.
HSI is working to encourageinnovative fishing gear and practicesto reduce incidental seabird bycatch
Protecting Sharks
118
Helping to protect sharks in Australia and globally has been one of HSI’s
mainstay campaigns for many years. Our activities have focused on
utilising state, national and international law to provide broad protection
for as many shark species as possible.
Our persistence helped lead to early prohibitions on the practice
of finning sharks and throwing them back to sea alive in all jurisdictions
in Australia, and we have vigorously pursued a policy which would
see a prohibition of the sale of all shark fins and an end to all targeted
shark fishing in Australian waters.
Setting precedents for marine fish protective listingsOur nominations set precedents in securing protection for the great white
shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and grey nurse shark (Carcharias taurus)
under national and state threatened species laws that HSI helped put in
place. Since those early successes HSI has worked diligently to secure
legislative recognition of the diminishing conservation status of an
increasing number of shark species, including the school shark (Galeorhinus
galeus), great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran) and the scalloped
hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini).
Many other HSI shark nominations have been or are being assessed by
Commonwealth and state governments, including for the dusky, short
and long-fin mako, spotted wobbegong, oceanic whitetip, porbeagle,
thresher, sandbar and bull sharks. Others are still being considered by
HSI for nomination, including the tiger, bronze whaler, big thresher, pelagic
thresher, ornate wobbegong, banded or gulf wobbegong, spotted
wobbegong and silky, common blacktip, spinner, silver tip, blue and
gummy sharks.
The listing of the great and scalloped hammerhead sharks under the
threatened species provisions of the NSW Fisheries Management Act
1994—provisions that HSI was instrumental in achieving—were the very
first conservation listings for hammerhead sharks in Australia. In response
to these nominations, the NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee agreed
to review the status of the smooth hammerhead shark (Sphyrna zygaena)
on “look-a-like” grounds. Similarly, HSI’s great and scalloped hammerhead
nominations under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) triggered an internal
review of the status of the smooth hammerhead. Both NSW and the
Commonwealth are still considering the final status of this species.
HSI also provided research monies as a partner in the Paddy Pallin
Foundation Science Grant program to study the “biology, fishery and
factors influencing the distribution of a potentially vulnerable sphyrnid
species (Sphyrna zygaena) off NSW, Australia”. Additionally, following
on from HSI’s nomination of the common thresher shark (Alopias vulpius)
under the EPBC Act, we funded further research work with the Paddy
Pallin Foundation, supporting a Flinders University PhD candidate to
undertake an assessment of the vulnerability of thresher sharks (Alopias
spp.) to commercial and recreational fisheries.
Migratory species conventionHSI worked closely with the Australian Government to see the great
white shark protected under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS)
in 2002, and worked on early and successful global efforts for the
porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus), long fin mako (Isurus paucus), short fin
mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) sharks and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias)
to be similarly protected by the CMS. We have also gone on to work
with Governments on negotiations for an international agreement to
conserve migratory sharks, agreed through the CMS (Sharks MoU),
which came into force in 2010, with HSI becoming a CMS cooperating
partner in 2012.
In November 2014 unprecedented new conservation measures were
agreed for key marine species at CMS when 22 shark and ray species
were added to the CMS appendices. Member countries agreed to grant
strict protection to the reef manta ray, nine species of devil rays, and five
sawfish species, and also committed to work internationally to conserve
all three species of thresher sharks, two hammerhead species, and the
silky shark. This followed substantive efforts by HSI in the preceding
years convincing governments of the need for greater protection for
migratory sharks (see Table 2 on page 120).
Unfortunately the Australian Government immediately lodged a
reservation against five of the shark species added to Appendix II
of CMS—the bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus), common
thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus), pelagic thresher shark (Alopias
pelagicus), scalloped hammerhead shark, and the great hammerhead
shark. HSI has been working to get Australia to reverse this decision
and withdraw the reservation, the first known reservation Australia
has taken against an environmental treaty.
Fortunately, and in part thanks to pressure from HSI, Australia did not
oppose the transfer of those 22 shark and ray species to the list of species
that CMS Sharks MoU protects at the second Meeting of the Signatories
in Costa Rica in early 2016. These threatened sharks will now be the
subject of an international Conservation Plan.
HSI regularly attends the full CMS and
Shark MoU meetings to fight for these
magnificent animals.
More generally, in November 2011 HSI
signed a Partnership Agreement with the CMS Secretariat, recognising
those areas of our work where we could best work together.
CITESHSI was behind Australian Government actions to have the great
white shark protected under the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 2004.
In addition to the great white, our previous role as the Chair of the global
Species Survival Network (SSN) Shark Working Group saw HSI take a
lead in the successful campaigns for the breakthrough listings of the
whale shark (Rhincodon typus) and basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus)
on CITES in 2003. In 2013 after a successful campaign, the oceanic
whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus), scalloped hammerhead shark
(Sphyrna lewini), smooth hammerhead shark (Sphyrna zygaena), great
hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran), porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus)
and manta rays (Manta spp.) were all listed in Appendix II of CITES (trade
controlled by license). The freshwater sawfish (Pristis microdon) was also
listed in Appendix I (trade banned).
These listings came into effect in September 2014 after an 18 month
implementation delay, and during this time HSI participated in a number
of workshops around the world to assist with implementation and
continues to do so. Appendix II listing requires nations to provide export
permits based on approved management plans.
Helping gain global protectionfor 22 shark and ray speciesunder international law
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
119
120
Common name CMS CITES
White shark I & II II
Shortfin mako shark II
Longfin mako shark II
Smooth hammerhead shark II
Scalloped hammerhead shark II II
Great hammerhead shark II II
Oceanic white-tip shark II
Thresher sharks (pelagic, bigeye, common) II
Whale shark II I & II
Silky shark II
Basking shark I & II II
Porbeagle II II
Spiny dogfish II
Manta ray I & II II
Reef manta ray I & II II
Common name CMS CITES
Pygmy devil ray I & II
Atlantic devil ray I & II
Spinetail mobula I & II
Shortfin devil ray I & II
Giant devil ray I & II
Munk's devil ray I & II
Lesser Guinean devil rayI & II
Box ray I & II
Bentfin devil ray I & II
Dwarf sawfish I & II I & II
Smalltooth sawfish I & II I & II
Largetooth (freshwater) sawfish I & II I & II
Green sawfish I & II I & II
Common sawfish I & II I & II
Table 2. Shark and ray species listed on CMS and CITES treaties—HSI was fully
involved in the successful global NGO campaigns to see these species protected
*At the CITES conference of the parties in South Africa in 2016, attended by a large HSI lobbying
team, there was great success with the listing of three species of thresher sharks, the silky shark
and eight species of mobula (devil) rays.
HSI maintains a number of concerns with Australia’s published Non
Detriment Finding (NDF) for hammerhead sharks and continues to
pursue improvements in the NDF in light of domestic and international
protection in place for these species.
HSI, in league with our Washington office and many other like-minded
NGOs, has proposed a whole range of shark species for CITES protection
over the years, and while we have not succeeded fully in all our endeavours,
the long-term campaign continues. Other shark species we have lobbied
for protection for under CITES include the entire gulper shark family
(Centrophoride spp.), whaler or requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae spp.), tope,
school or soupfin shark (Galeorhinus galeus) and guitarfishes/shovelnose
rays (Rhinobatidae spp.) (see Table 2).
At the CITES conference of the parties in South Africa in 2016, attended
by a large HSI lobbying team, there was great success with the listing
of three species of thresher sharks, the silky shark and nine species of
mobula (devil) rays.
Grey nurse sharkThe highly imperilled grey nurse shark has needed even more help on
the East Coast than the HSI instigated national threatened species listing
in 2000 gave them, and so we have waged a campaign for many years
to secure marine reserves for 19 of its aggregation sites along the east
coast of Australia which continue to be threatened (see map opposite).
HSI was particularly pleased, after a five-year campaign, to help secure
protection for the 300 hectare Cod Ground Reserve in Commonwealth
waters off the coast of northern New South Wales. A key aggregation
site, the 1000m no-take sanctuary area, where all forms of commercial or
recreational fishing are banned, finally came into effect on 28 May, 2007.
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
121
Map 1. Critical Habitat and other key grey nurse aggregation sites along the NSW coast
We have been working to encourage all governments to protect the
critical habitats of shark populations, and in 2010 in league with WWF,
produced maps showing the approximate locations of critical habitats
for the great white shark, whale shark and grey nurse shark.
As part of our ongoing support for the grey nurse shark for example, we
also provided funding assistance to the Nature Conservation Council of
NSW when they went to court with concerns about the impact of a NSW
export fishery on the grey nurse shark; helping arrange national grey
nurse shark symposiums in September 2013 and planned for late 2016,
bringing all stakeholders together to discuss programs to improve grey
nurse shark conservation, and fighting to protect them from the effects
of shark nets and drum-lines.
HSI also helped draft the National Recovery Plans for both great white
and grey nurse sharks as a member of Australia’s National Shark Recovery
Group. The National Plan of Action for Sharks was also important in
securing effective shark conservation measures. After many years of
agitating for the preparation of a United Nations Food and Agricultural
Organisation (FAO) required ‘National Plan of Action for Sharks”, the
Commonwealth has since compiled two National Plans of Action for
Sharks (NPOA-Sharks), and HSI has been integrally involved with both
including serving on the subsequent Committee. HSI has also prepared
its own comprehensive shark policy and strategy, and a wide-ranging
‘Compendium of Conservation Measures’ addressing shark and other
bycatch problems in commercial tuna fisheries (see above).
HSI’s campaign against shark nets and drumlinesThe death toll on wildlife, including threatened shark species, in the shark
nets along NSW and Queensland’s ocean beaches raises HSI’s ire every
summer and we have done much to demonstrate their cruelty to animals
and ineffectiveness as a bather-protection measure in the media. Despite
our scientific nomination securing a listing for the oceanic shark nets
(the current shark meshing program in NSW waters1) in 2003 as a Key
Threatening Process (KTP) under the NSW Fisheries Management Act
1994, both the NSW and Queensland governments remain far too
concerned about a political backlash to require their removal.
HSI has repeatedly highlighted the unacceptable number of deaths of
Critically Endangered grey nurse sharks, threatened turtles, whales and
dolphins as well as other species such as dugongs and rays in the shark
nets. Nevertheless, the legal and public pressure we have brought has
seen improvements in the way the nets are managed, and in 2015 HSI
submitted a new KTP nomination under the EPBC Act to cover the NSW
and Queensland shark control programs (the Commonwealth had
rejected an earlier HSI nomination in 2002). HSI also joined forces with
like-minded organisations to campaign for the scientific trials of non-
lethal alternatives to shark nets in NSW, in the hope that at a minimum,
alternatives to the shark nets can start to be seriously considered. As a
result of this work, HSI was invited to the September 2015 Shark Summit,
hosted by the NSW government.
The Summit was where the NSW government made its announcement
to implement non-lethal alternative technologies and avoid the extension
of shark nets on the North Coast. HSI was disappointed however with the
government’s plan to introduce smart drumlines, a technology touted
as non-lethal but which still places a threat on the marine environment
and its inhabitants. The drumline works on the assumption that any
animal captured on the line will be released within two hours. But the
122
1 http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/species-protection/conservation/what-current/key/shark-meshing
two species of hammerheads protected in NSW (great and scalloped)
are one of the most frequently caught non-target species in the NSW
meshing and Queensland shark control programs. Hammerheads have a
high post-release mortality rate after having been caught on a fishing or
drumline line and our view is that utilising mechanisms such as aerial
patrols, shark spotter programs and eco-barriers would offer a greater
benefit to ocean users and marine species.
HSI is also working to put an end to the nets and drumlines in Queensland
waters. 166 drumlines are currently present in Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Area (GBRMPA), with the Queensland government currently
proposing an increase of drumlines to 213. HSI has made its extreme
concern about this proposal known to government and our investigations
have indicated that successive variations of the permit by government
to place drumlines in the GBRMP and World Heritage Area have enabled
a huge increase in drumlines in this internationally protected area.
If the latest proposal is approved, the number of drumlines in the GBRMPA
will have increased by over 40% since 2004 when the original permit
was granted—an increase of 7 drumlines a year. We are concerned that
the effect on marine species in this area will only worsen. Over the
course of the program more than 5,000 threatened marine turtles have
been captured in nets and on drumlines and between 2001 and 2010
almost 30 humpback whales were caught. Important marine regions
such as Cairns have seen the number of drumlines triple.
Therefore, we are in the process of seeking advice on the legality of
several drumlines within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and World
Heritage Area and the use of nets within the NSW shark meshing program.
The NSW government has recently confirmed, thanks in part to pressure
from HSI, that they are not legally able
(without Commonwealth consent) to put
in place any new shark nets in state waters.
However, the state government recently
announced that it would be extending the number of smart drumlines
used in NSW and that it would introduce new shark nets on the north
coast. The Federal Environment Minister has approved the use of
drumlines and will, no doubt, provide an “exemption” under the EPBC
Act to NSW for the extension of its shark net program. HSI will be
seeking some form of legal remedy.
WA shark debacleHSI was fully engaged in the massive public debate about killing sharks
on Western Australia’s beaches around Perth. After substantive public
backlash and condemnation of the killing of over a hundred tiger sharks
and a number of protected great white sharks, the WA Environmental
Protection Authority thankfully advised the Fisheries Minister not to
proceed with the culling program. HSI worked at the time with the
Environment Defenders Office (EDO) in NSW to seek an injunction
against the WA government’s shark control plans, but an anticipated
bill of $250,000 should we have lost became prohibitive, and luckily
such action was not needed.
Thousands of HSI supporters responded to our call to action, while our
Washington office organised 33,000 emails to hit the desks of the Federal
Environment Minister and the WA Premier. We also produced a spoof
video highlighting the irony of the shark cull in light of the International
Court of Justice ruling against Japanese whaling which went viral.
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
123
We continue to seek legal remediesin the courts to government sharkculling programs
However the WA government continues to have a ‘Serious Threat Policy’
which they use to selectively catch and kill sharks, most recently killing
a white shark in June 2016. Given that no sharks had been killed in WA
since December 2014, HSI had hoped that this signalled a change in
policy by the WA government but sadly this is not the case and we
continue to seek legal advice on the WA policy. HSI is opposed to the
killing of any sharks using baited drumlines in WA, and we have continued
to speak out against any future cull.
HSI has also highlighted what we see as a direct link between past shark
attacks in WA and the live export sheep vessels that regularly leave ports
on the west coast, discarding sheep carcasses as they go. The WA
government has been predictably unresponsive to our assertions, though
one senior bureaucrat from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry (highlighted by a WA journalist FOI request) thought that
the idea that the rise in shark attacks could be linked to the presence
of sheep ships was “intriguing” and suggested specialists at the CSIRO
pursue the issue.
We continue to monitor this situation closely and have called on the
Federal Environment Minister to do more to protect the great white
shark against such actions.
124
white shark granted state,national and international
protection following HSI advocacy
Great
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
125
Of Seals, Sea Lions, Dolphins, Marine Turtles and Dugongs
126
Passage of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act 1999 (EPBC Act) brought strong national protection to all seal
species occurring in Australian waters, setting fisheries that threaten
seals and other marine species through bycatch on a more ecologically
sustainable path. This has included the development of a national bycatch
policy and its implementation in fisheries management, in which HSI
has been fully involved.
High on HSI’s marine mammal protection program has been the
scandal of hundreds of seals drowning in trawl nets. During 2000,
due to significant negative publicity generated by HSI on the number
of seals being caught as bycatch in the South-East Trawl Fishery, the
Commonwealth government required the trialling of Seal Excluder
Devices (SEDS) to mitigate the problem, which became mandatory
on large factory ships.
We also responded strongly to the large number of elephant seals on
sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island where the species was suffering from the
effects of “hot iron branding”. The Commonwealth Environment Minister
stopped the practice after pressure from HSI and a public furore, while
we sought legal advice on possible prosecutions and a review of research
ethics procedures. At the same time, we were lobbying governments
hard over the issue of guns on boats, which are often used to shoot
“nuisance” seals illegally.
We were successful in developing scientific nominations which were
accepted by the Commonwealth Government in 2001, resulting in the
protection of the sub-Antarctic fur seal and the southern elephant seal
under the EPBC Act. We were similarly successful under Victorian law.
Such legal listings and protections also triggered the development of
national recovery plans for both species, while all Australian seal species
benefited from the listing of marine debris as a Key Threatening Process
under the EPBC Act, following an HSI nomination (read more in marine
turtle section below).
In 2010 a report from a leading marine mammal scientist revealed that
an estimated 256 Australian sea lions are killed each year in the gillnet
sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF).
This fishery operates off the coast of South Australia. The Australian sea
lion is Australia’s only endemic sea lion, protected as threatened under
state and Commonwealth law, and an icon used extensively by the tourism
industry which generates extensive revenue.
Strict conditions were imposed on the SESSF by the Federal Environment
Minister to reduce the impact of the fishery on the Australian sea lion as
a direct result of past litigation by HSI. Consequently, we called upon the
Minister to take urgent action to protect the Australian sea lion and
strictly enforce this condition.
HSI undertook substantial lobbying efforts which led to the development
of a Management Strategy by the Australian Fisheries Management
Authority (AFMA), finalised in late 2011. This involved the establishment
of a number of zones with ‘trigger limits’ for the number of Australian
sea lions that could be killed before that zone closed. This strategy has
led to significant effort reduction in the SESSF gillnet fishery, mostly due
to the fact that these triggers were quickly breached in 2011-12 and three
zones closed. The first major closure ran to some 27,000 square kilometres,
evicting all commercial gill netting operations from the entire area.
Thankfully since mid-2012 there have been very few reported fatalities
of Australian sea lions and all zones are currently open to fishing.
This is evidence that this strategy is being successful, and HSI continues
to monitor this issue closely as any relaxation of approach could lead to
more fatalities. HSI has successfully nominated the Australian sea lion
for an upgrade to ‘Endangered’ under the EPBC Act.
HSI has also been lobbying hard against other trawling problems involving
seal and sea lion bycatch in Western Australia and Tasmania, with the
latter state being the home base for the super trawler, the Geelong Star.
Working with colleague NGOs we hope that progress will be made in
WA in 2017 to ensure that greater protection will be put in place around
Australian sea lion habitats similar to those already in place in SA.
Concurrently we have been working with colleague NGOs and the South
Australian Government to protect long-nosed fur seals from commercial
fishermen in the Coorong who incorrectly believe that the seals are
decimating their fish catches. HSI has welcomed the current SA
government’s position opposing a cull.
HSI has also consistently worked to reduce dolphin bycatch in
Commonwealth and State fisheries, working with AFMA, Environment
Departments, NGOs and other stakeholders to ensure that progress is
made to minimise the deaths of dolphins. This work continues.
Marine mammal working groupHSI’s Alexia Wellbelove has recently been invited to join AFMA’s newly
formed Commonwealth Fisheries Marine Mammal Working Group. The
group held its first meeting in late 2016 and is aiming to provide advice to
AFMA on marine mammal management arrangements in Commonwealth
fisheries. It is a result of HSI’s extensive
work in this area that we have been
accepted as the sole NGO representative
on this group.
Marine turtlesWe are very pleased to have been able to make what we hope is an
important contribution to marine turtle conservation in Australia and
internationally. Australia is lucky enough to have six of the world’s seven
species of marine turtle: loggerhead, green, hawksbill, leatherback, olive
ridley and flatback, all of which are threatened to some degree.
One of the most serious threats to these ancient reptiles had been death
caused by drowning in Australian prawn trawl nets. HSI instigated the
development of a scientific nomination to list ‘prawn trawling’ as a KTP
under national environmental law.
This action was critical to the campaign to see Turtle Excluder Devices
(TEDS) implemented in prawn trawl fisheries around the country. The
successful 2001 EPBC Act listing, coupled with the US prohibition on
the import of prawns from foreign trawl fisheries that did not use TEDS
(a ban gained by HSI’s Washington office) placed serious pressure on
the Australian prawn industry to address the problem of turtle bycatch.
This situation saw Australian prawn exports temporarily banned from
entering the US, pending the introduction of TEDS, which have now
become mandatory in Australian prawn trawl fisheries (seeing a reduction
of turtle capture and death by at least 95%).
HSI was also concerned that marine turtles were getting caught on
longline fishing hooks used to catch tuna and billfish. We have been
Working with our Washington DC officeto force the use of Turtle ExclusionDevices on Australian trawlers
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
127
lobbying for many years to have Regional Fisheries Management
Organisations (RFMOs) adopt stronger avoidance measures including
longline fishing closures in areas of high risk for turtles and this issue
was included in our most recent Tuna Bycatch Compendium.
HSI’s nomination of prawn trawling as a KTP also triggered a
Commonwealth scientific review of the conservation status of all marine
turtles in Australia, which resulted in the protection of the endemic
flatback turtle and the olive ridley turtle under the Endangered Species
Protection Act 1992. As a member of the national recovery plan team,
HSI subsequently helped draft the national marine turtle recovery plan,
pushing for strict protection for turtle critical habitat sites and better
cooperation with Indigenous communities in relation to traditional
harvesting. We have also highlighted the threats to marine turtles by
boat-strike and shark netting, with the latter successfully recognised in
NSW law as a KTP, thanks to an HSI nomination, while the Commonwealth
is considering the assessment of a similar KTP nomination.
In 2010 HSI and WWF Australia published “Protecting Critical Marine
Habitats—the key to conserving our threatened marine species” (written
by Lydia Gibson and Alexia Wellbelove) which provided critical habitat
maps in Australia for the leatherback, hawksbill, olive ridley, green,
loggerhead and flatback turtles. This important data was presented to
the Australian government.
Through the passage of strong environment laws, HSI has also helped
increase marine turtle protection in general, including the successful
nomination and listing of another key threat to marine turtles—marine
debris. The listing promoted one of the Commonwealth’s first financial
responses to marine debris, which was the allocation of $2 million to
reduce “ghost nets” in the Gulf of Carpentaria. The KTP was listed as
“Injury and fatality to vertebrate marine life caused by the ingestion of, or
entanglement in, harmful marine debris” and a National Threat Abatement
Plan (TAP) was released in 2008, with a review of the TAP, in which HSI
participated, undertaken in 2015.
HSI also helped with destructive marine debris in the Gulf of Carpentaria,
financially supporting the Dhimurru people from North East Arnhem
Land, through the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation,
who have been working for many of years to reduce turtle deaths by
undertaking helicopter-based monitoring, scouring the coastline of NE
Arnhem Land, and disentangling and rescuing threatened marine turtles.
Further north, in Indonesia, HSI has been financially supporting a very
effective conservation organisation called ProFauna since 2000. ProFauna
campaigners work fearlessly in difficult political circumstances against
the illegal trade in turtles, achieving trade bans, helping organise major
turtle confiscations from smugglers, the capture and prosecution of
smugglers (in cooperation with the police), and effective local and
regional education programs. ProFauna undertook a particularly
important study, funded by HSI, which looked at the illegal turtle egg
trade flourishing in Kalimantan. Their work was able to be used to increase
and improve the Indonesian Government’s enforcement of the law.
For the last few years we have been supporting the Bali Sea Turtle
Conservation Society. The Society protects nesting marine turtles along
Kuta Beach in Bali and other prime tourist beaches, successfully relocating
eggs and releasing tens of thousands of hatchlings back into the sea.
128
Marine turtles also benefited from the dedication of significant resources
under the Commonwealth’s $10 million Regional Natural Heritage Program,
an initiative HSI helped bring to fruition. Over $2 million was allocated to
habitat protection in marine biodiversity hotspots in the region, such as
the Coral Triangle, and specific turtle conservation work in Fiji, Vanuatu
and Tuvalu.
HSI maintains its successful lobbying efforts, in cooperation with colleague
organisations and conservation minded governments, in blocking
numerous attempts by commercial wildlife traders to recommence global
trade in turtles shells, debated at meetings of the Convention on Inter -
national Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
We have also helped trigger the negotiations for a regional Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU) on turtle conservation between the countries
of the Indian Oceans and South East Asia, as activists and expert advisers
on the Australian Government delegations. The MoU is an agreement
for all signatory countries to cooperate to protect turtles from bycatch
in fisheries, disease, marine debris, habitat degradation and
unsustainable harvesting.
DugongsAs a member of the Commonwealth’s Dugong Advisory Group in the
mid-nineties, HSI worked with the Office of the Federal Environment
Minister and key NGOs in a Commonwealth/state review of dugong
conservation in the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef, culminating
in a decision by the Commonwealth to dedicate 16 Dugong Protected
Areas along the Queensland coastline. HSI had earlier initiated, in
cooperation with AMCS, a nomination to protect the dugong as
a Vulnerable species under the
Commonwealth’s Endangered Species
Protection Act 1992, which was unfortunately
rejected by the government. While not a
listed species requiring identification and protection of critical habitats,
in co-operation with WWF, HSI identified 39 such critical dugong habitat
sites across northern Australia and presented our findings to the
Commonwealth and relevant state and territory governments.
Dugongs also benefitted from the completion and ad hoc implementation
of the Commonwealth’s ‘Marine Debris’ Threat Abatement Plan, following
HSI’s earlier KTP nomination and from the marine debris work of the
Dhimurru in North East Arnhem Land. While ensuring the dugong was
not removed from the protective schedules of CITES, we have also
continued to urge all governments to take a close look at, and effectively
control, illegal trade in dugong meat in northern Australia, and were also
a member of the Dugong Rehabilitation Working Group.
HSI helped protect dugongs throughthe legal recognition of ‘marine debris’as a Key Threatening Process
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
129
The following are a selection of recommendations that HSI believes
provide basic conservation requirements for a range of marine species
protective action.
1 Reinstate recovery teams for all listed threatened marine species
and mandate that recovery plans are prepared and published within
2 years of species being listed
2 Significant new monies and research efforts should be invested in
identifying the increasing impacts on threatened species by marine
debris (fully implementing the current Marine Debris Threat Abatement
Plan (TAP)—‘Injury and fatality to vertebrate life caused by ingestion
of, or entanglement in, harmful marine debris’)
3 Maintain and improve national management and approval by the
Commonwealth Environment Department under the EPBC Act of all
Commonwealth and export fisheries
4 Prohibit the use of “super trawlers” in Australian waters
5 Significant new monies and research efforts should be invested in
identifying the impacts on marine species (including seabirds, sharks,
dolphins, sea lions) of all commercial fishing techniques in all state,
territory and Commonwealth fisheries
6 All commercial fisheries must work towards (mandated) zero bycatch
of all listed threatened Commonwealth and state marine species
7 Continue to publish required CITES Non-Detriment Findings (NDFs)
for listed species (especially sharks) and take into account global
and national conservation status
8 Australia must take a leadership role at CITES and CMS to identify
and sponsor marine species nominations
9 Significant new monies and research efforts should be invested in
identifying the impacts on and threats to sharks, large predatory fish
and other listed marine species from recreational game fishing, and
listing by the Commonwealth as a Key Threatening Process under
the EPBC Act (‘Recreational fishing which results in the capture of top
order predators such as sharks, tuna and marlin including competition
game fishing, offshore fishing, line fishing and other fishing methods’)
followed by implementation of a TAP
10 The issue of trawling/seabird bycatch in relevant Commonwealth,
state and territory fisheries must be addressed and the discarding
overboard of all offal must be banned by the end of 2017 and current
research into impacts significantly stepped up
1 1 The government must commit to a National Plan of Action for
Seabirds to include all commercial and recreational fisheries
12 Government must commit to the long-term renewal of the longline
TAP (‘Incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during oceanic longline
fishing operations’) achieving zero bycatch as a matter of urgency
13 Significantly increase Australia’s participation, commitment and
resources in ACAP to ensure that full use of all required seabird
bycatch mitigation devises are implemented by all RFMOs
14 Prohibit the use of lasers in all Australian commercial fisheries as a
seabird bycatch mitigation measure and promote a non-use policy
through ACAP
Marine Species Conservation Recommendations
130
15 Significant new monies and research efforts should be invested in
shark biology and conservation status for EPBC Act/IUCN listed
species, and specific conservation assessment undertaken under
the EPBC Act for all shark species (rays, sawfish etc.) including
identification of critical habitat areas
16 List ‘Death or injury to marine species following a capture in the
lethal shark control programs on ocean beaches’ as a KTP under the
EPBC Act and implement a TAP
17 Commonwealth and state governments must fully apply the
Precautionary Principle in assessing shark species for conservation
listings, and not continually refuse to protect based on the claim of
“insufficient data”
18 A Data Deficient status listing should be adopted under the EPBC
Act implying the need for caution in species management
19 End targeted commercial and recreational shark fishing in Australia
(including relevant charter boat industries)
20 End the export and import of all shark products from Australia and
prohibit domestic trade
21 Lift the Commonwealth’s current CMS ‘Reservation’ over 5 listed
shark species and refrain from any future ‘Reservations’
22 Significant new monies and research efforts should be invested in
dolphin biology and conser vation status assessment for EPBC
Act/IUCN listed species—to obtain a greater understanding of
Australian populations
The Commonwealth must seek to ensurezero albatross bycatch in commercialand recreational fisheries
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
131
Over the past twenty years HSI has prioritised campaign efforts to
help protect flying-foxes on the east coast of Australia and achieve
national protection and conservation action for a number of other
bat species. These efforts have often seen HSI take on governments
head to head in the courts.
Legislative protectionHSI has utilised a range of laws to help protect flying-foxes and other bat
species across Australia, including the Endangered Species Protection
Act 1992, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(EPBC Act), NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and the
Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act). Through our
nomination program we were able to secure protection for eight
threatened bat species under these laws.
These species included the bare-rumped sheathtail bat, Christmas Island
pipistrelle, greater large-eared horseshoe bat, Semon’s leaf-nosed bat,
Pilbara leaf-nosed bat, large-eared pied bat, Corben’s long-eared bat
and the grey-headed flying-fox (see Table 4 on page 23).
As a result of the listings on the EPBC Act, recovery plans were required
to be prepared and any action that may significantly impact on any of
these species must be referred to the Federal Environment Minister for
approval. To date, only six of the species listed have had recovery plans
published, with one in draft form for several years. One species, the
Christmas Island pipistrelle, is now presumed extinct (thought to be the
first mammal to suffer this fate in Australia in 50 years), although its EPBC
Act status is yet to reflect this (Consultants report to HSI in 2014; “Review
of the conservation benefits resulting from the listing of Australian Bat
and Flying-fox species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act, 1999”, by J. Atherden).
The most recent species to have a recovery plan put in place was the
spectacled flying-fox in 2010, and the Commonwealth released its
Referral guideline for management actions in Grey-headed and Spectacled
flying-fox camps in late 2015.
HSI has opposed the delisting of the Semon’s leaf-nosed bat, greater
large-eared horseshoe bat, and bare-rumped sheath-tailed bat, recently
considered by the Australian government due to a lack of information
about their status. We argued that any such move would be counter -
intuitive considering recovery actions associated with their threatened
statuses are the best method of attaining this knowledge.
Court action on behalf of flying-foxesOver the years, HSI has found itself in court on a number of occasions
defending flying-foxes or financially supporting other NGO flying-fox
court actions. Our very first action was a successful foray into the New
South Wales Administrative Appeals Tribunal over an HSI Freedom
of Information request, where the court granted us access to critical
information about the location of grey-headed flying-foxes shot by
farmers in the state.
In Victoria, with the Melbourne Botanic Gardens wanting to cull their
colony of grey-headed flying-foxes, the Minister initially rejected the
advice of the FFG Act Scientific Advisory Committee to list the species
in 2001. Fortunately the Minister eventually conceded to the necessary
listing after the species was gazetted at a Federal level following an
HSI nomination.
Threatened Species and Human ConflictEDITOR, EVAN QUARTERMAIN*
PROTECTING AUSTRALIA’S FLYING-FOXES AND OTHER BATS
132
*HSI Senior Program Manager
In March 2001 HSI went to the Victorian Supreme Court for an injunction
to stop the shooting of 1,000 grey-headed flying-foxes in Melbourne’s
Botanic Gardens, who were seeking to do so due to the alleged damage
being caused by the species to the vegetation of the Gardens. Unfortunately
HSI’s request for an injunction to stop the shooting was dismissed, due
to the last minute alteration by the Botanic Gardens authorities of the
permit which stated that animals were going to be euthanised by lethal
injection. However, as a result of the legal and political pressure exerted
by HSI and other groups in this case, the Botanic Gardens revised their
plans, and in the end the entire colony was instead dispersed, relocating
to another site along the Yarra River. Associated with the Victorian
campaign, HSI had also taken successful action in the Victorian Civil
and Administrative Tribunal, at the time known as the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal.
In 2001 HSI also gave modest financial and much political support to a
very important Federal Court case brought by Queensland conservationist
Dr Carol Booth, where a north Queensland farmer (Bosworth) was
electrocuting thousands of spectacled flying-foxes to protect his lychee
crop. In a landmark ruling the farmer was consequently found to be in
breach of the EPBC Act, the judge determining that even though the
spectacled flying-fox was not yet protected under the EPBC Act, the
killing of hundreds per night throughout the fruit season was having
a ‘significant impact’ on the values of the adjacent World Heritage and
EPBC Act listed rainforests. This ruling set an important precedent in
interpreting the EPBC Act’s considerable powers.
The spectacled flying-fox was finally listed under the EPBC Act in 2002,
but its conservation status has unfortunately deteriorated in the intervening
decade, prompting HSI to submit a
nomination under the Act to upgrade the
listing from Vulnerable to Endangered in
2015. This nomination was prioritised for
further assessment, with the Threatened Species Scientific Committee
due to provide advice to the Minister in 2017.
In 2003, HSI brought a case in the Federal Court against the
Commonwealth Environment Minister for purporting to give an
exemption—to persons proposing action to kill listed grey-headed and
spectacled flying-foxes—from their obligation under the EPBC Act to
refer those actions for approval. At the time Queensland and NSW
authorities were issuing licences to fruit growers to shoot flying-foxes
for crop protection. The purported exemption was given in the EPBC Act
Administrative Guidelines for the Grey-headed flying-fox, with HSI arguing
that they should not provide such an exemption.
The Federal Court Judge ruled that the guidelines did inappropriately
exempt persons from their obligations under the EPBC Act, and the
Commonwealth Minister was instructed to rectify the guidelines, which
he subsequently did. As a result, every fruit grower was required to make
a decision as to whether the proposed culling of flying-foxes may have,
would have, or be likely to have, a significant impact on either of these
listed species.
HSI was also involved in a long-term campaign to prevent the dispersal
of a colony of grey-headed flying-foxes from Sydney’s Royal Botanic
Gardens (a critical habitat for the species), which the Botanic Gardens
wanted removed due to the alleged damage being caused to heritage
listed trees. Unfortunately, in May 2010 the dispersal was approved by the
HSI has been to court on sixoccasions to protect threatenedflying-foxes
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
133
Commonwealth Environment Minister, which triggered a Federal Court
challenge under the EPBC Act by HSI (with Bat Advocacy NSW as the
applicant). The first court action in this case against the Commonwealth
Environment Minister was lost in 2010, as was the subsequent appeal to
the full bench of the Federal Court in 2011. HSI has continued to monitor
this situation since the dispersal was eventually achieved by the Botanic
Gardens, with tracking of some of the grey-headed flying-foxes present
showing splintering to a variety of roosting locations including
Centennial Park.
As a footnote, although a number of drafts have been issued for
consultation, there is sadly still no recovery plan for the grey-headed
flying-fox despite the species being listed in 2001. HSI continues to fight
for the finalisation of this plan, which, in 2016, finally passed the crucial
stage of being presented to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee
under the EPBC Act, and we will be scrutinising it for possible legal
actions when issued.
Campaign to end shooting of flying-foxesIn recent years HSI has campaigned heavily to end the inhumane
practice of shooting flying-foxes in NSW, allowed to occur through the
state Government’s issuing of licences to harm the threatened species
for commercial crop damage mitigation. Although authorised shooting
of grey-headed flying-foxes resulted in the reported killing of thousands
of animals in some years, the conservation impact was less a driver of
our objection than the cruelty involved—evidence showing that pregnant
flying-foxes had starved to death after being immobilised by shotgun
pellets perforating their wing membranes.
On the 15 May, 2008 the shooting of flying-foxes was made illegal in
Queensland, when the Minister for the Environment announced an end
to issuing permits from September. This was following advice from
Queensland’s Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, who found that the
shooting of flying-foxes under Damage Mitigation Permits was inhumane.
Sadly, in September 2012 the newly elected Queensland Government
announced the resumption of shooting following an amended regulation
exempting flying-foxes from humaneness requirements under
Queensland’s Nature Conservation Act 1992.
Following the 2008 Queensland decision HSI reignited its earlier
campaign against the shooting of flying-foxes in NSW, working closely
with other groups to achieve a ban in the state. In 2009 Why NSW
Should Stop Shooting Flying-foxes was published, a document signed
by 60 organisations, led by HSI, bringing the issue to the attention of
government and the media. Subsequently, HSI also promoted an autopsy
report by researchers from the University of Sydney, showing the
significant level of cruelty involved in the shooting of flying-foxes. This
was in addition to a number of Freedom of Information requests to gain
data on the licences to shoot flying-foxes issued in NSW.
As a result of this pressure, the NSW government announced the
establishment of an expert review panel to look into the issue. HSI
presented to this panel, whose report was published in August 2009.
The report concluded that the animal welfare issues arising from these
shootings are ‘unacceptable ethically and legally’. HSI then worked with
the NSW Government and other animal welfare and conservation groups
to get a commitment for an end to the shooting practices. HSI has also
gained allies in the fruit industry, developing good relationships with the
134
NSW Farmers Federation and having statements of support being issued
by orchardists in the state.
In 2011, following a successful HSI campaign, the NSW government made
an election commitment to end shooting of flying-foxes by 30 June,
2014. This commitment came as part of a broader package of funding
of $5 million towards grants for the installation of full exclusion netting
by orchardists in the Sydney Basin and Central Coast regions. HSI’s
representation on the NSW government’s Flying-Fox Consultative
Committee helped gain this commitment to phasing out the issuing of
flying-fox shooting licences, along with our close work with orchardists.
HSI was subsequently asked to join the NSW Flying-Fox Netting Program
Sub-Committee that advises on the delivery against the election
commitment. We continue to play an active role on this committee and
the NSW Flying-Fox Consultative Committee and were pleased to see
the recent extension of the netting subsidy to cover the whole of NSW.
A further $2.1 million was made available, bringing the total government
investment in the scheme to $7.1 million.
We advocated strongly for the NSW government to meet their
commitment to end licensed shooting by 30 June, 2014, however a
further year’s delay to the commitment was announced along with the
news that from 1 July, 2015 the shooting would continue to be permitted
under ‘special circumstances’ for another five years. While this delay to
the end of shooting was extremely disappointing, HSI welcomed the
government commitment to end shooting with the view that lethal take
would be considerably reduced during the phase out due to just a handful
of orchardists meeting the special circumstance requirements.
However in the season that followed 790
grey-headed flying-foxes were reported
as being shot by five individuals, a figure
similar to the average over the last decade.
HSI is now working to ensure thousands more flying-foxes are not
inhumanely shot prior to the 2020 cessation date.
The problem of flying-fox camps and critical habitatsFlying-fox camp management consistently remains an extremely
contentious issue along Australia’s east coast.
HSI is very concerned indeed at continued efforts by the Commonwealth
government to delegate decisions about the protection and management
of flying-fox camps containing EPBC Act listed threatened species to
states and territories, and in effect local councils—with the Federal
government seeking to streamline any assessment process to virtually
ensure that state and local authorities are able to disperse even roosts
that are considered nationally important (critical habitats). As a nomadic
species, the grey-headed flying-fox requires a cooperative approach
across state and territory borders, ideally with Commonwealth oversight,
as opposed to decisions being made at a state or council level. HSI
continues to provide comment to all such camp management processes
currently underway in an attempt to ensure the best possible protection
for these threatened species. The following cases in which HSI has been
involved highlight the growing conservation dilemma:
Thanks to the work of HSI, Commonwealthlaws now recognise 43 nationally importantgrey-headed flying-fox camps
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
135
Cannes Reserve, Avalon NSWIn 2015 the NSW government released its Flying-fox Camp Management
Policy, intended to streamline the process of the Office of Environment
and Heritage making regulatory decisions regarding local council
management. HSI was critical of this policy at its release, with the focus
on species conservation apparent in previous versions shifting to
unfounded concerns surrounding health risks—prompted it seems by
the negative publicity generated by the tabloid press.
Among the first camps to be subject to the new policy was the grey-
headed flying-fox colony at Cannes Reserve on Sydney’s Northern
Beaches, with complaints about the noise and other impacts of the
resident flying-foxes by neighbouring residents seeing Pittwater Council
seek action. Although the policy set out a three-tiered approach of ideal
camp management, the Cannes Reserve Flying-fox Camp Management
Plan authorised by the NSW government quickly moved to the second
tier of the creation of a vegetation buffer, along with the final stage of
an attempted dispersal.
Despite the intention to streamline approvals a management mess
eventuated, with several licences to harm threatened species being
applied for and occasionally conflicting approvals being granted. When
buffer creation and initial dispersals were ineffectual, the Council applied
for and was granted extensions and variations that pushed the conditions
beyond what was specified in the Camp Management Plan. Additionally,
component species of a state-listed Threatened Ecological Community
in the core area of the Reserve were lopped, again in conflict with the
Cannes Reserve Camp Management Plan. This farcical approach has
resulted in the devastation of the Reserve, with stressed grey-headed
flying-foxes still clinging to what remnants they can.
HSI sought multiple process/legal answers from the Department, asking
that they desist, while EDO NSW looked for chinks in the government’s
legal armour.
Water Gardens and Catalina, Batemans Bay NSW2015 saw the release of the Referral Guideline for Management Actions
in grey-headed and spectacled flying-fox camps, which while having
plenty of room for improvement, was a positive outcome from the species’
listings and importantly defined and recognised more than 30 ‘nationally
important camps’ along the east coast (see map on page 137). These
nationally important camps are in effect a representation of critical
habitats for these two threatened flying-fox species, particularly
important in the continued absence of a recovery plan for the grey-
headed flying-fox.
However this recognition is not as powerful as a critical habitat declaration,
as shown by the 2016 management of the Water Gardens and Catalina
camps. While the above example at Cannes Reserve occurred in a
relatively small reserve, the colonies at Batemans Bay were identified
within the referral guidelines as being nationally important for the
conservation of the grey-headed flying-fox. This appeared to matter not
to the Commonwealth Environment Minister, who following a temporary
rise in flying-fox numbers at the camps to a significant 100,000–120,000
following a rare food source flowering event, exempted the Eurobodalla
Shire Council from their EPBC Act requirements, declaring that it was in
the “national interest”—during the caretaker period in the lead up to the
July Federal election no less.
136
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
137
! ( ! (
! (
! (! (
! (
! (
! (! (! ( ! (
! (
! (! (
! (! (
! (
! (
! (
! (! ( ! (
! (
! (! (
! (! (! (
! (! (
! (! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (! (
! (! (
! (! (
NE
W S
OU
TH
WA
LE
SN
EW
SO
UT
H W
AL
ES
QU
EE
NS
LA
ND
QU
EE
NS
LA
ND
VIC
TO
RIA
VIC
TO
RIA
AC
TA
CT
[28-
34]
See
Inse
t
Tam
wor
th
New
cast
le
Que
anbe
yan
Cof
fs H
arbo
ur
Por
t Mac
quar
ie
Twee
d H
eads
Now
ra
Alb
ury
Mai
tland
Gou
lbur
n
Bat
hurs
t
Can
berr
a
Ces
snoc
k
Ora
nge
Dub
bo
Bow
ral
Lism
ore
Wol
long
ongArm
idal
e
Syd
ney
Gla
dsto
ne
Toow
oom
baMar
ybor
ough
Gol
d C
oast
Bun
dabe
rg
Her
vey
Bay
Bris
bane
Mel
ton
Bal
lara
tBen
digo
Sun
bury
Mel
bour
ne
She
ppar
ton
Wod
onga
Pak
enha
mG
eelo
ngTr
aral
gon
2 3
1
45
6
7
89
1011
12
1314
1516
17
20
21
2223
2425
2627
35 36
37
38
39
4243
4140
18/1
9
150°
0'0"
E
150°
0'0"
E
145°
0'0"
E
145°
0'0"
E
25°0'0"S 30°0'0"S 35°0'0"S
Que
ensl
and
1 W
ooco
o2
Gym
pie
3 K
anda
nga
4 P
each
este
r5
The
Pal
ms
Nat
iona
l Par
k, C
ooya
r6
Day
boro
, R
ailw
ay S
treet
7 P
arki
nson
, Av
onda
le C
resc
ent
8 B
oona
h, B
icen
teni
al P
ark
9 C
anun
gra,
Bee
chm
ont R
oad
10 C
urru
mbi
n C
reek
New
Sou
th W
ales
11 M
urw
illum
bah,
Bra
ys P
ark
12 B
undg
eam
, M
oore
Par
k13
Cas
ino
14 D
alw
ood
215
Mac
lean
16 C
opm
anhu
rst
17 W
oolg
oolg
a La
ke18
Bel
linge
n Is
land
19 B
ellin
gen,
Com
mun
ity g
arde
n20
Mac
ksvi
lle21
Tam
wor
th,
Kin
g G
eorg
e Av
enue
22 P
ort M
acqu
arie
, K
oolo
onbu
ng C
reek
23 K
enda
ll24
Lan
sdow
ne S
tate
For
est (
Pip
ecla
y C
reek
)25
Win
gham
Bru
sh26
Ray
mon
d Te
rrace
27 E
ast C
essn
ock
28 G
ordo
n29
Par
ram
atta
Par
k 1
30 C
ente
nnia
l Pk
31 C
abra
mat
ta32
Wol
li C
reek
33 M
acqu
arie
Fie
lds
34 K
aree
la35
Cam
den,
Bro
wnl
ow H
ill36
Bom
ader
ry C
reek
37 Y
atte
yatta
h38
Bat
eman
's B
ay,
Wat
er G
arde
ns39
Beg
a, G
lebe
Par
kVi
ctor
ia40
Bai
rnsd
ale
41 Y
arra
Ben
d42
Dov
eton
43 G
eelo
ng,
East
ern
Par
k
Nat
iona
lly Im
porta
nt C
amps
of
Gre
y-he
aded
Fly
ing-
fox
±010
020
050
Km
! (
! (
! (! (
! (
! (! (
28
29
3031
32
33
34
Syd
ney
Blac
ktow
nPa
rram
atta
Live
rpoo
l
o
!(N
atio
nally
Impo
rtant
Cam
ps
Pro
tect
ed A
reas
This paved the way for vegetation removal at the camp and an attempted
dispersal, with the only hurdle required for the Council being the NSW
government Camp Management Policy—a policy disastrous for the small
colony of Cannes Reserve was now to apply to potentially 25% of the
population of a nationally threatened species. And with the NSW Premier’s
announcement of the provision of $2.5 million to attempt flying-fox
dispersal at Batemans Bay, despite it being declared an action unlikely
to succeed by all expert advice, the writing was on the wall. The Office
of Environment and Heritage (OEH) proceeded to declare that the
removal of 23% of vegetation at the camp and dispersal of the colony
would not have a significant impact on the grey-headed flying-fox, and
works immediately proceeded.
At the time of printing, HSI is investigating several potential legal actions
pertaining to both Federal and NSW governments’ management of the
Batemans Bay grey-headed flying-fox colony. If such a scenario is the
result of the combined threatened species protection legislation and
policies of both Commonwealth and state governments (the grey-
headed flying-fox being listed as threatened under both levels of law),
it certainly doesn’t bode well for the future of a species that plays a
keystone ecological role along the entirety of Australia’s east coast.
In 2015 HSI also worked with the Ku-ring-gai Bat Conservation Society
to fight against Ku-ring-gai Council’s application to destroy roost trees
in prime grey-headed flying-fox habitat at Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve.
The conservation of this camp is highly important to the species, leading
to it being established as one of the first Voluntary Conservation
Agreements (VCAs) in NSW. Due to the VCA’s presence, we queried
whether the Office of Environment and Heritage had obtained the
necessary National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 approvals in addition to
those already granted under the Threatened Species Conservation Act
1995, which required the proposed action to be consistent with the
reserve’s Plan of Management. Shortly after the works were completed,
we were informed by OEH that the required approval regrettably hadn’t
been obtained.
Dispersals in other statesMeanwhile similar dispersals are occurring in other states within flying-
foxes’ distributions such as Queensland and Victoria. Highly questionable
methods were used in the attempted dispersal of a grey-headed flying-
fox camp in Cairns (including low-flying helicopters and paint guns), and
recently a colony of what was thought to be approximately 1,000,000
little red-flying-foxes in Kilcoy was dispersed through the bulldozing
of significant amounts of habitat. We have a long way to go with the
humane treatment and conservation of flying-foxes nationwide, and
the issue continues to be core business for HSI.
Probable extinction of the Christmas Island PipistrelleIn May 2009 HSI became aware of the dire situation for the Christmas
Island Pipistrelle, with surveys estimating that only 20 animals remained
in the wild. This followed a successful nomination of the Christmas Island
Pipistrelle as an Endangered species under the EPBC Act by HSI in 2001,
and a subsequent uplisting to Critically Endangered in 2006. In response
to this alarming news, HSI wrote to the Commonwealth Environment
Minister together with our partner NGOs requesting he take urgent
action and adopt the recommendations made by the Australasian Bat
Society, one of which included launching a rescue mission to capture
the remaining bats for a captive breeding program in a last ditch attempt
138
to save the species. This urgent call followed months of delay and inaction
by the government and sadly by the time that they had agreed to fund
the rescue effort, no bats were found in the field. It is now thought that
the Christmas Island Pipistrelle is extinct, the first mammal extinction in
Australia in 53 years.
Conservation recommendations
• Prioritise the immediate publication of and implementation of
identified actions in the severely delayed Recovery Plan for grey-
headed flying-foxes
• Improve the strength of the EPBC Act Referral guideline for
management actions in grey-headed and spectacled flying-fox camps
so that any management actions negatively impacting on animals in
Nationally Important Camps require Department of Environment
assessment and approval from the Minister
• Decisions on the removal of flying-fox camps recognised as nationally
important under Federal guidelines must not be made by local councils /
Environment Ministers may not delegate such powers
• Immediately list all nationally important camps described in the camp
guidelines in the EPBC Act “Critical Habitat Register”
• Prohibit habitat destruction or significant vegetation modification in
bat camps additionally identified as containing a state or EPBC Act
listed Threatened Ecological Community
• Ensure cumulative impacts of any nationally important camp
management actions/dispersals and shooting licences are considered
during all impact assessment procedures
• Invest Commonwealth and state funding into long-term habitat
restoration and expansion projects in appropriate areas to minimise
ongoing wildlife-human conflicts
• Camp management in areas with wildlife-human conflict must focus
on mitigation measures for affected residents (such as double-glazing
and air conditioning) rather than dispersal and habitat destruction
that harms bats and exacerbates conflicts by splintering camps
• Implement a national ban on all shooting licences and permits for
crop protection, for both threatened and non-threatened bat species,
due to high levels of suffering and cruelty involved
• The Commonwealth should call a national flying-fox conservation
summit in early 2017 to agree upon an implementation plan for
primary conservation actions
• A national recovery team should be established to oversee the
implementation of the National Recovery Plan for grey-headed flying-
foxes and provided adequate operating resources
• Commonwealth and state governments must allocate sufficient
monies to see the full and long-term implementation of the National
Recovery Plan, including the protection / purchase of critical habitats
and camps
• Fund research into the range and population trends of all EPBC Act
listed bat species, with methods developed by lead Australasian Bat
Society scientists.
The Commonwealth must list all nationallyimportant flying-fox camps under the EPBCAct’s Critical Habitat Register
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
139
Emerging conservation science is increasingly pointing to the
importance of dingoes as Australia’s top order mammalian predator,
helping to control both introduced red foxes and feral cats, and fulfilling
critical ecosystem functions. In turn this means that dingoes play an
equally important role in protecting a long list of threatened and non-
threatened Australian species preyed upon in almost incomprehensible
numbers by these feral interlopers. And yet we continue to kill dingoes
in large numbers even though a recent CSIRO analysis describes the
dingo (Canis dingo) as ‘near threatened’, noting that lethal control
programs, widespread across the country, are largely ineffective
(Woinarski et al. 2014).
HSI has been working to improve national attitudes towards the
protection of the dingo since we first opened our doors for conservation
business two decades ago, recognising that a significant shift in how
dingoes are viewed throughout the country is required before
meaningful action is likely to occur.
The legal routeIn 2002, HSI joined the Colong Foundation for Wilderness in holding
the ‘Dingo: Friend of Foe?’ national seminar at the Australian Museum in
Sydney, with the conference’s Resolutions calling for a range of measures
(including legal actions) that were presented to Commonwealth and
state Environment and Primary Industry Ministers. Dr Martin Denny of
Mt King Ecological Surveys simultaneously undertook work for HSI which
assessed the potential for legal protections for dingoes, concluding in his
report ‘Nomination of the Dingo as a Threatened Species—is it possible
and is there an alternative?’ that a way of providing the dingo with
additional protections may be to develop legislative nominations for
‘threatened population’ listings.
It was proposed that this could be accomplished through either a
‘Threatened Ecological Community’ nomination under Commonwealth
and state legislation, a nomination as a ‘distinct population of biological
entities’ under Commonwealth law, or as ‘endangered populations’
under New South Wales law.
Dr Denny also provided examples of areas where dingo populations
might be eligible for listing, which included Kakadu National Park, Barkly
Tablelands, Northern Australia, Central Australia, Pilbara, Gibson Desert,
Central Queensland, Fraser Island, Melville Island, Bathurst Island, and
Groote Island. HSI acted upon his advice, and sought the help of dingo
expert Dr Laurie Corbett, who subsequently advised HSI to seek
protection for key dingo populations under the National Heritage
provisions of the EPBC Act.
HSI had just helped (2004) ensure the passage of the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) National
Heritage amendments through the Australian Senate, and converted
Dr Corbett’s written advice into National Heritage nominations for seven
of the most important places protecting the most outstanding examples
of intact dingo populations in Australia. These were the populations
residing in the Arafura Swamp, Bradshaw Training Area, and Kapalga in
the Northern Territory, Fraser Island in Queensland, the Kimberley Islands
in Western Australia, Kosciuszko in New South Wales, and the Simpson
Desert in Central Australia. Due to its particularly outstanding dingo
values, the Simpson Desert was re-nominated for a National Heritage
listing by HSI in 2016, with other places to follow pending its success in
being prioritised for further assessment and potential listing.
These nominations recognised, along with its ecological significance,
that the dingo has become ingrained in the fabric of Australian society
Conservation of the Dingo
140
for historical and cultural reasons. HSI had hoped that these landmark
nominations of the dingo as a natural, cultural and Indigenous icon would
help develop the concept of ‘heritage species’ listings under the new
Commonwealth legislation.
Unfortunately, the government would not accept a heritage species
proposal and rejected four of the nominations outright, although the
Kimberley Islands nominated by HSI were included in the 2013 listing
of the West Kimberley on the National Heritage List. Theoretically, any
Commonwealth reassessments of the heritage values of World Heritage
Kakadu or Fraser Island would include the resident dingo populations in
the nationally and internationally recognised list of “values”.
During all these attempts to gain legal protection for the dingo, we have
kept up the political pressure where persecution of the dingo has been
prevalent and promoted its conservation to our supporters and in the
media. This has included ongoing opposition to the killing of dingoes on
Fraser Island; seeking the referral of all major 1080 baiting programs across
the country to the Commonwealth Minister under the EPBC Act; touring
overseas wild predator conservation and control experts, including
Dr John Hadidian from our Washington office (The Humane Society
of the United States) and Suzanne Stone (Defenders of Wildlife wolf
management programs in five US states); and countering industry
initiatives such as the National Wild Dog Action Plan developed by Wool
Producers Australia and other industry and government dog destruction
programs.
Senior staff of HSI and our Wildlife Land Trust (WLT) program have
recently been gaining international experience in relation to large
predator management, and we are currently a member of an internal
global organisational working group on wolves due in part to their
ecological roles and management
treatment being highly similar to that
of dingoes.
HSI also had a look at the use of 1080,
one of the tools used by authorities and landholders to kill wild dogs
and dingoes, due to concerns regarding its indiscriminate nature and
animal welfare implications. In 2001, a report was prepared for HSI, again
by Dr Martin Denny, on the “Application of Sodium Monofluorotoacetate
(1080) as a Poison in Vertebrate Pest control in Australia: A review”.
In an attempt to ensure better control of 1080 management nationwide,
HSI subsequently developed and submitted Key Threatening Process
nominations for assessment under Federal, New South Wales and
Victorian conservation laws, but were unable to initiate government
interest on all fronts. We also helped fund the successful work of the
Tasmanian Conservation Trust in significantly reducing 1080 usage in
that state, where the poison’s abuse had been widespread in the killing
of native wildlife.
Further legislative proposalsIn early 2010 HSI submitted a threatened species nomination for the
dingo to be listed as Endangered under the Federal EPBC Act. Sadly,
despite the dingo being considered in both 2010 and 2011, and unusually,
for a third year in 2012, the Federal Environment Minister did not agree
to include the dingo on the Finalised Priority Assessment List (FPAL).
In late 2011, the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities (SEWPaC) wrote to HSI explaining why
the predator had not been prioritised for assessment:
HSI sought National Heritage Listingsfor seven of Australia’s most importantand intact dingo populations
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
141
“The Committee notes that the dingo is a keystone species and, since
European settlement, its range and population size has declined due
to ongoing hunting, baiting, hybridisation and establishment of the dog
fences. However limited data is available to determine the decline in
the species’ total population size and geographic distribution throughout
its national extent. Additional population studies and surveys would be
required to enable detailed assessment to be undertaken. If the species
was eligible for listing, protection of the species across different
government jurisdictions would be difficult, given the complex policy
and legislative management issues across the species’ national range.
Current management plans do not encompass the entire range of the
species. The Committee considers that the development and
implementation of a National Conservation Plan, encompassing the
entire geographic distribution of the dingo, could be an effective
management response.” (SEWPaC correspondence, 14/9/11).
Then in 2012, SEWPaC wrote again to HSI explaining that the dingo had
not been included on the Finalised Priority Assessment List (FPAL) for
the assessment period commencing 1 October 2012 as:
“The dingo presents a complex range of issues relating particularly
to definition of species’ bounds, cultural and ecological significance,
interbreeding with wild dogs, and contested management and
legislative requirements at regional, state and national levels.
The Committee noted that no substantial additional information
to inform an assessment of this species had become available since
it last considered it and recommended not including this taxon on
the FPAL.” (SEWPaC correspondence, 29/8/12).
Noting this requirement of further information and a need for research
in a range of areas including the nationwide conservation status of the
dingo and even the definition of the species, HSI has continued to lobby
for a comprehensive review to be conducted through government
initiatives such as the National Environmental Science Programme (NESP).
We believe it is vital that the development of a national dingo recovery/
conservation plan be initiated by the Commonwealth, recognising this
iconic mammal’s natural, Indigenous and cultural importance to Australia.
It should incorporate alternative and humane mechanisms for managing
livestock conflicts, seek to maintain the dingo’s keystone role in Australian
ecosystems, and consequently contribute to the recovery of our growing
list of threatened native animals.
Our next step was the submission of a KTP nomination under the EPBC
Act in March 2015 titled ‘The cascading effects of the loss or removal
of the mammalian predator, the dingo (including wild dogs and dingo
cross dog hybrids) from Australian landscapes’. This was undertaken as
it was becoming clear to us that a major side effect of dingo killing
programs was the significantly increased risk posed to threatened
species that occur in areas wherever the dingo is subject to lethal
controls due to decreased suppression of invasive predators such as
foxes and feral cats (mesopredator release). Not only that, but increased
risk to livestock as well, with research showing that intact dingo packs
are able to hunt traditional prey, whereas individuals from fractured packs
resulting from lethal control programs tend to be more opportunistic.
As is the case with all HSI efforts pertaining to dingoes, we strongly framed
this nomination based on the fact that it is not just ‘pure’ dingoes that
should be conserved, but all dingoes and hybrids that perform the
same ecological role.
142
In 2015, HSI stressed the essential role of the dingo in supressing feral
cat populations in our submission to the Commonwealth government’s
draft ‘Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats’, in which we
stated, “The weight of scientific evidence is now sufficient to warrant the
establishment of a dingo predator re-wilding program as a broad-scale,
cost-effective way of suppressing both cats and foxes to the benefit of
literally hundreds of species of native wildlife. While it is fair to say that
success of such a program is far from certain, its prospects are far more
attractive than continued broad-scale 1080 baiting, which although cheap,
lacks evidence of effectiveness.” The Commonwealth’s final feral cat plan
did not adequately reflect our advice, which we feel was an important
opportunity lost.
Our KTP for the loss of dingoes under the EPBC Act was unfortunately
not placed on the 2015 FPAL, with the Threatened Species Scientific
Committee suggesting that “While the detrimental effect of the removal
of the dingo on ecosystems and species is a valid hypothesis, there is
little direct evidence that the removal of dingoes will i) cause a species or
ecological community to become eligible for listing; or eligible for listing
in a higher threat category; or ii) that it will have an adverse affect on a
listed threatened species or ecological community. The Committee would
require more extensive data on the direct impact of the threatening
process on biodiversity to be able to assess the nomination as a key
threatening process. The removal of dingoes from ecosystems is at best
an indirect threat to functional ecosystems. The outcomes of listing this
threatening process would likely be ineffective in terms of the legislative,
social and economic barriers to the successful implementation of
abatement measures.”
Based on this initial response, HSI updated
and re-submitted a strengthened KTP
nomination as ‘The cascading effects
of the loss or removal of dingoes from
Australian landscapes’ in 2016, providing a greater focus on the positive
effects dingo presence has on a variety of birds and small mammals listed
as threatened. We also substantially re-drafted our nomination for the
dingo as a nationally threatened species, this time under the Conservation
Dependent category, while additionally providing evidence for Vulnerable
populations to provide the Threatened Species Scientific Committee
with flexibility as to the assessments potentially undertaken. As it is a
legislative requirement that a national conservation program is in place
for a species to be listed as Conservation Dependent, we outlined the
need for such a plan to be developed in conjunction with any further
assessment. Regrettably, these nominations were once again not
prioritised for further assessment in 2016.
In a rare positive move for dingo conservation the Victorian government
listed the dingo as a threatened species under state legislation in 2008
in response to a nomination by Dr Ernest Healy of the National Dingo
Preservation and Dingo Recovery Program (NDPRP), of which HSI has
been a member for several years. However post-listing conservation
initiatives to implement new dingo management efforts are struggling,
with the view that pure and hybrid dingoes should be treated differently
hampering potential conservation gains to the point where they are
effectively negated.
HSI proposes the establishment of adingo predator re-wilding program tohelp suppress feral cats and foxes
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
143
The conservation impact of the listing is diminished if there is any
perceived degree of hybridisation, rendering the animal a “pest” rather
than a protected species. Dingoes and hybrids can look so alike that in
most instances it is debatable whether making such a distinction quickly
in the field is possible, leading to a de facto regime where ‘protected’
dingoes are being ‘controlled’ across the landscape.
Drawing such a line in the sand on hybridisation is simply unnecessary,
with evolutionary processes at work on the dingo still acting on hybrids
today—dingo traits being those best suited to survival in the harsh
Australian environment. The species should be given the benefit of the
doubt in the field if it is to survive in the wild in Victoria.
HSI has been supporting the Victorian based NDPRP in running the
campaign to improve the effectiveness of this state threatened listing,
and we hope to maintain such support in the future. Most recently we
have lobbied with the NDPRP to oppose the reintroduction of a ‘wild
dog’ bounty in Victoria. Disappointingly, against all scientific evidence
and their previous dingo conservation legacy, the Victorian Labor
government announced a return to a misguided bounty program just
prior to this publication being printed.
Concurrent actionsOther proposed program efforts encompass assessing the environmental
impact and legality of dingo fences (and indeed the general proposition
that various dingo control programs may be impacting negatively upon
EPBC Act Matters of National Environmental Significance); an assessment
of the potential to list the dingo under the United States Endangered
Species Act; enlisting the support of key US NGOs; further research into
dingo ecology (having already financed, in cooperation with the Paddy
Palin Foundation and the NSW Zoological Society, work by Dr Aaron
Greenville of the School of Biological Sciences at Sydney University in
2014 investigating the role of the dingo in protecting native species from
being overhunted by foxes and cats); establishing a ‘Dingo Protection
Network’ across the HSI Wildlife Land Trust’s 400 Australian sanctuaries
(as well as HSI’s Humane Choice Farms); looking at the legal possibilities
for challenging laws that require landholders to bait with 1080 on
properties against their will; promoting the establishment of a major
Australian property trial with Maremma sheepdogs and stock protection;
and seeking to make fresh nominations under all relevant state and
territory laws for KTP and species listings, as well as reviewing the
potential for ‘discrete population’ and ‘faunal’ Threatened Ecological
Community nominations.
Conservation recommendations• Commonwealth to initiate the development of a National Dingo
Conservation Plan to ascertain population status and trends and ensure
the growing body of research demonstrating the keystone role of the
dingo is reflected in government policy
• List the dingo as a Conservation Dependent species and loss of dingoes
from the landscape as a Key Threatening Process under the EPBC Act
• Trial non-lethal stock protection alternatives to 1080 baiting, such as
Maremma dogs, alpacas and donkeys, on a large scale across different
Australian landscapes and production regions
• Broaden the legal definition of the dingo to include a degree of
hybridisation in all states and territories, but most importantly Victoria
to enhance the threatened listing’s effectiveness
144
• Urge the Victorian government to effectively implement legislative
obligations to protect and recover the dingo in Victoria
• Move the dingo fence around Sturt National Park in western New South
Wales and reintroduce dingoes into Murray-Sunset National Park in
northwestern Victoria, and study the resulting impacts on ecosystem
health and threatened species abundance
• Support re-wilding programs for dingoes generally, where scientifically
sound and ecologically appropriate
• List key national dingo populations under the National Heritage List
• List discrete threatened populations of dingoes under Commonwealth
and state threatened species laws’ provisions
• Prioritise the assessment of dingo based faunal Threatened Ecological
Community nominations
• Ensure the Feral Cat Threat Abatement Plan fully recognises and
acts upon recognition of the role of dingoes in suppressing feral cat
populations
• The Commonwealth should convene a National Dingo Conservation
Workshop during 2017.
References
Woinarski J. C. Z., Burbidge A. A. & Harrison P. (2014) The Action Plan
for Australian Mammals 2012. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
The Commonwealth mustdevelop a National DingoConservation Plan
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
145
The burgeoning global trade in wildlife and wildlife products has
always been a priority issue for HSI in Australia and for HSI globally.
This includes the job of ensuring that Australia fully implements its
trade obligations under CITES (Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), the CBD (Convention
on Biological Diversity) and a range of global commercial trade
agreements.
HSI has dedicated a very large amount of its time and resources into
international and domestic trade campaigns, and the following provides
a short overview of this broad trade program.
As a member of the international Species Survival Network (SSN) an
alliance of over 80 conservation and animal protection NGOs, HSI has
continued to contribute to global campaigns aimed at curbing, controlling
and prohibiting trade in the world’s threatened species. Our aim has been
two-fold: to do all we can to make sure that the Australian government
acts in an appropriate conservation manner when voting to list or delist
species at Conferences of the Parties (CoP) to CITES (which has often
been problematic) and to pursue effective implementation of trade
and environment (and animal welfare) protection rules.
HSI carefully monitors our government’s attitude to such matters as the
illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn, to be certain they are not supportive
of any attempts to reignite a legal trade in either of these products—
stranger things have happened. In advance of each CITES CoP, HSI
Australia and SSN provide the Australian government with a complete
analysis and voting recommendations for proposals and working
documents to be considered at these meetings. This advice is widely
respected and referred to by all CITES Parties during the CoP to inform
their positions. Over the years we have helped see the listing of many
dozens of species on CITES under threat from global trade, and stopped
the commencement of new trade by dealers and nations eager to
promote unsustainable wildlife trade programs.
In addition to its role within the SSN network, HSI has also been a long-
term Board member of TRAFFIC Oceania (Trade Records Analysis of
Fauna and Flora in Commerce) with the current TRAFFIC representative
in Australia acting as the organisation’s reference point on global fisheries
trade. And fisheries trade has formed a major part of HSI’s CITES work
over the years.
As noted in other sections of this publication we have been successful
in working with the Australian and many other governments to break
the long-standing reluctance of CITES to list shark species, with institutions
like the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation and nations such as
Japan ferociously opposed to such listings. But after a very long fight,
the blockage was eventually overcome and we are very pleased to have
played a role in this critical leap forward for marine fish conservation
(see Table 2 on page 120).
There are now 22 shark and ray species, the survival of which is threatened
by uncontrolled international trade, listed on Appendix II of CITES (licensed
trade) including the great white shark, the great and scalloped hammer -
head sharks, and two species of manta rays. Additionally, the entire
sawfish family (Pristis spp.), is listed on Appendix I of CITES (completely
prohibiting trade), a campaign HSI was very much involved in, sparking
a long-running battle with the Australian government.
Domestic and International Wildlife Trade
146
We have worked with the Australia Government and industry in
attempting the listing of highly valuable and highly threatened marine fish
species on CITES, such as the southern bluefin tuna and the Patagonian
toothfish, but so far without luck. HSI also helped stop the delisting of
the Australian population of the dugong, the broad-headed snake and
the gastric brooding frog from CITES; fought successfully with colleague
NGOs to halt any plans to trade again in sea turtles; and worked to stop
the Japanese and other governments from removing any of the great
whale species from CITES.
HSI Australia has attended every CITES CoP since the 1994 meeting in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, often providing expert advisers on the official
Australian Delegation. But in the last decade, Australia’s performance
at these meetings has left a great deal to be desired.
In attempting to strengthen the enforcement of CITES obligations in
Australia, HSI worked in 2001 with the Commonwealth government and
the Australian Democrats to see the inclusion of new provisions in the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC
Act) dealing with wildlife trade. These new clauses dramatically increased
the Commonwealth’s capacity to enforce wildlife protection obligations,
improved animal welfare provisions, and provided some of the toughest
penalties in the world.
Our domestic trade work has seen us maintain our focus on marine
exports, although not exclusively. We have been to the Federal Court
and the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal to stop the
import of a family of endangered elephants from Thailand (with IFAW
and the RSPCA) and to challenge the export of macropod products
from Tasmania (pademelons, Bennett’s
wallabies and brushtail possums). The
former resulted in a range of new conditions
to vastly improve the welfare of the
elephants in captivity, and the latter ended in successful out of court
negotiations for an enhanced animal welfare and conservation regime.
We conducted a successful campaign to stop the export of live platypus
from Taronga Zoo to a Japanese Zoo; have been holding off for 22 years
the demand of the Northern Territory government to export saltwater
crocodile trophies taken in organised safari hunts; stopped the export
trade in pre-CITES owned rhino horn; pressured to have a ban on the
importation of exotic savanah cats that would have posed a threat to
Australia’s wildlife; provided advice to NGOs on campaign and legislative
options for fighting the kangaroo export program; and continued to
work with our US offices to maintain US macropod product import
bans. We also pushed the Federal government to implement tougher
controls on Chinese medicines containing tiger, rhino and bear parts.
HSI has gained policy commitments from the Australian government to
develop specific laws to prohibit illegal timbers, especially from Indonesia
and Papua New Guinea, with such laws eventually passing through the
Parliament. But we have remained unhappy about weaknesses in these
current regulations, and are working closely with EDO NSW (Environment
Defenders Office NSW) to develop much stronger controls, and to include
provisions to prohibit the import of palm oil products.
The Commonwealth must implement the speciesprotection provisions in the Environment Chapterof the TPP whether it comes into force or not
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
147
HSI has also expended a large amount of energy over the last decade
trying to ensure that during negotiations for new bilateral and multilateral
trade agreements, pressure was maintained and recommendations
proposed that promoted the strongest conservation and animal welfare
provisions possible. This was particularly so for the Trans Pacific
Partnership (TPP) Agreement where HSI worked for many years with
our Washington office to help see the emergence for the first time of a
stand-alone environment chapter in the final agreement. HSI has now
engaged EDO NSW to prepare legislative recommendations that would
see all the provisions of that environment chapter effectively enforced
in Australia.
Back on the marine trail, we worked very hard to see effective export
controls on seahorses; produced an investigative report on the trade in
tropical aquarium fish; and are still pursuing a prohibition on the import
and export of shark fins.
As noted in the marine chapters, we have found ourselves in the courts
challenging the Commonwealth over the approval of an export trade
programs for the endangered southern bluefin tuna and the Southern
and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, negotiating a range of improved
species management conditions to the latter fishery before export
could occur.
HSI’s extensive international NGO small grants program, financially
supporting anti-wildlife trade and anti-poaching programs in dozens of
countries around the world, will be reviewed in a future policy publication.
148
despite HSI’s numerous attempts for listing under Commonwealththreatened species and heritage
laws, no action has been taken
Dingo
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
149
Daphandra1Buttercup Doubletail2Illawarra Irene3Cotoneaster Pomaderris4Mount Vincent Mintbush5Eastern Underground Orchid6Illawarra Ziera (Granulate)7Downy Wattle8Nodding Geebung9Micromyrtus minutiflora10Pultenaea parviflora11Allocasuarina glareicola12Tadgell’s Bluebell13Bynoe’s Wattle14Dillwynia tenuifolia15Small-flower Grevillea16Hairy-Joint Grass17Salt Pipewort18Blue Devil19Austral toadflax20McNutt’s Wattle21Picris evae22Ooline23Stream Clematis24Croton magneticus25Denhamia parvifolia26Black Ironbox27Pomaderris clivicola28Sophora fraseri29Zieria verrucosa30Queensland White Gum31Belson’s Panic32Spiny Pepper-cress33Xerothamnella herbacea34Mossgiel Daisy35Wingered Pepper-Cress36Atriplex infrequens37Slender Darling-Pea38White-Flowered Wax Plant39Camden White Gum40Narrow-Leaved Geebung41Spiked Rice-Flower42Sydney Plains Greenhood43River Swamp Wallaby-Grass44Matted Flax-Lily45Purple Glycine46Gaping Leek-Orchid47
Maroon Leek-Orchid48Dwarf Kerrawang49Metallic Sun-Orchid50Spiral Sun-Orchid51Swamp Everlasting52Philotheca ericifolia53Tylophora linearis54Curly-Bark Wattle55Speargrass56Pink-lip Spider-Orchid57Woolcock’s Spider-Orchid58Bluegrass59Striate Spike-Sedge60Leafless Indigo61Erect Pepper-Cress62Silver Daisy-Bush63Sandhill Greenhood Orchid64Menindee Nightshade65Roadside Wallaby Grass66Southern Ballantine67Black-Tipped Spider-Orchid68Curly Sedge69Curtis’s Colobanth70Clover Soybean71Basalt Pepper-cress72Grassland Paper Daisy73Tunbridge Leek-Orchid74Fleshy Greenhood75Golfers Leek-Orchid76Pungent Leek-Orchid77Midland Greenhood78Leafy Greenhood79Arthur River Greenhood80Grassland Greenhood81Tunbridge Buttercup82Chariot Wheels83Ridged-Water Milfoil84Spiny Riceflower85Lowly Greenhood86Turnip Copperburr87Red Swainson-Pea88King Bluegrass89Small Scurf-Pea90Small Golden Moths Orchid91Sunshine Diuris92Trailing Hop-Bush93Adamson’s Blown-Grass94
Hoary Sunray95Gorae Leek-Orchid96Prasophyllum frenchii97Fragrant Leek-Orchid98Basalt Greenhood99Button Wrinklewort100Large-fruit Fireweed101Swamp Fireweed102Dense Cord-Rush103Deane’s Boronia104Eucalyptus aquatica105Eucalyptus copulans106Wingecarribee Gentian107Tawny Leek-Orchid108Wingecarribee Leek-Orchid109Smooth Bush-Pea110Bantam Bush-Pea111Giant Kelp112Posidonia Seagrass113Baudin’s Sea Lavender114Bead Glasswort115Leafless Rock Wattle116Orange-Flowered Wattle117Western Wheatbelt Wattle118Chapman’s Wattle119Yornaning Wattle120Woolly Wattle121Chinocup Wattle122Chiddarcooping Wattle123Recurved Wattle124Bindoon Starbush125Kamballup Dryandra126Wagin Banksia127Southern Serrate Dryandra128Ironcap Banksia129Barbalin Boronia130Cluster Boronia131Ironcap Boronia132Dwarf Spider-Orchid133Cossack Spider-Orchid134Ballerina Orchid135Williams Spider Orchid136Hairy Mat Conostylis137Boscobel Conostylis138Mogumber Bell, Narrogin Bell139Remote Thorny Lignum140Keighery’s Eleocharis141
Fitzgerald Eremophila142Koobabbie Eremophila143Silky Eremophila144Pinnate-Leaf Eremophila145Resinous Eremophila146Rough Emu Bush147Lake King Eremophila148Wongan Eremophila149Whorled Eremophila150Campion Eremophila151Varnish Bush152Mukinbudin Mallee153Yandanooka Mallee154Scaly Butt Mallee155Midlands Gum, Jingymia Gum156Mt Yule Silver Mallet, Cadoux Mallet157Rose Mallee158Steedmans Gum159Bodallin Poison160Granite Poison161Cranbrook Pea162Christine’s Grevillea163Zig Zag Grevillea164Lake Varley Grevillea165Bertya ernestiana166Corrigin Grevillea167Red Snakebush168Branched Hemigenia169Round-Leaf Lasiopetalum170Scarlet Leschenaultia171Woolly Lysiosepalum172Jerramungup Myoporum173Paragoodia crenulata174Narrogin Pea175Wongan Rhagodia176Underground Orchid177Mingenew Everlasting178Bancroft’s Symonanthus179Cinnamon Sun-Orchid180Star Sun-Orchid181Sandplain Thomasia182Hill Thomasia183Green Hill Thomasia184Shy Featherflower185Long-Flowered Nancy186
Appendix IEPBC Act listed flora protected under HSI nominated TECs
150
flying-fox (federally protected after nomination by HSI) still faces state
government persecution
Grey-headed
151
Jessica Morris is a Marine Scientist and Program Officer with Humane
Society International. Prior to starting work with HSI in Sydney in 2014,
Jess completed her Masters Research in Marine Biology and Fisheries
Ecology in 2013 in far north Queensland. Jess’ research focussed on
mapping global marine turtle populations and nesting sites. Jess has
also worked on a number of marine research and conservation projects
on dolphins, whales and turtles both in Australia and overseas.
Evan Quartermain is a Senior Program Manager at Humane Society
International and has been with the organisation since early 2010. He
holds a Bachelor of Applied Science majoring in Ecology and Biomolecular
Science from the Queensland University of Technology and is a member
of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. Evan is responsible
for several of HSI’s terrestrial habitat and wildlife protection campaigns
and programs, having a particular focus on legislative reform, flying-foxes
(including as a member of the NSW Flying-fox Consultative Committee),
dingoes, and habitat protection through HSI’s Heritage and Threatened
Ecological Community nomination programs. As the coordinator of the
Australian Wildlife Land Trust for more than six years, Evan has seen the
program grow from 40 members to more than 400 at this point in time.
He is an experienced speaker on wildlife protection and private land
conservation matters, and has presented at several conferences including
as the Keynote at the Australian Wildlife Rehabilitation Conference in 2014.
Laura Muir is a Project Officer with Humane Society International
working primarily on the expansion of the Wildlife Land Trust, preparation
of nominations and legal aspects of several habitat and wildlife protection
campaigns. In 2015, Laura undertook an internship with HSI while
completing her final year of a Bachelor of International Studies and
Bachelor of Laws (Hons) and working as a research assistant with the
Dean of Law at Macquarie University, with her research focussing on the
international governance of sharks. Laura is currently completing a
Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice which included supervised practical
legal training as a volunteer at EDO NSW.
Nari Sahukar joined the EDO in 2011. He works with EDO NSW and
Environmental Defenders Offices of Australia to promote good
environmental regulation. Nari assists community groups, environment
groups and government agencies with policy and law reform advice.
This includes submissions to agencies and parliamentary inquiries, legal
advice, briefing notes and discussion papers on planning and development
law, biodiversity protection, mining law, and climate change and energy.
Nari has a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws (Hons) from Macquarie
University, Sydney, and is admitted as a solicitor in NSW.
Judy Lambert AM, BPharm, BSc(Hons), PhD, Grad Dip Env Manag,
Grad Dip Bus Admin has a particular interest in the interface between
the social and environmental aspects of sustainable living in both rural
and urban communities. Improving the links between scientific knowledge,
policy and on-ground expertise in ways that enable transformational
change is a major focus. Before she and her business partner, the late
Dr Jane Elix, formed their consultancy business Community Solutions
more than 20 years ago, Judy’s career moved from research to community
sector environmental advocacy, then government policy work as a fulltime
ministerial consultant. Judy has considerable experience as a researcher,
facilitator and consensus-builder working on the interactions between
primary production, biodiversity protection and natural resource
management.
Appendix IIContributors’ biographies (in order of appearance)
152
Paul Sattler OAM M Nat Res UNE, B App Sc (Rural Tech) QAC, FQA has
a lifetime experience working professionally in nature conservation. He
was the principal architect in doubling Queensland’s National Park estate
in the early 1990s whilst with the Queensland Department of Environment
and Heritage. This expansion based on securing representation of
biodiversity across all bioregions helped structure this comprehensive
approach nationally through the National Reserve System program.
Paul initiated and guided the comprehensive description of Queensland’s
bioregional ecosystems and assessment of their status, a vital planning
tool for conservation and natural resource management. He was principal
author of the National Land and Water Resources Audit’s Terrestrial
Biodiversity Assessment of Australia, the first detailed assessment of
biodiversity at a range of scales nationally. This included the preliminary
assessment of condition and trend of biodiversity elements across all
bioregions and sub-regions. Paul assisted in the development of a number
of national policies and guidelines including forest policy, vegetation
management (Member of the Council for Sustainable Vegetation
Management), and sustainable management of rangelands. He now
manages his own specialised eco-consultancy business and is a part time
apiarist. Paul has been awarded an OAM for his services to biodiversity
conservation and in 2015 was awarded the University of Queensland
Gatton Gold Medal.
Glen Klatovsky is currently the Director of the Places You Love alliance,
the largest ever collaboration of Australian environment groups. The
alliance represents more than 40 organisations with a combined financial
membership of 1.5 million Australians. Previously Glen has been a National
Campaigner for the Wilderness Society, the National Carbon Business
Manager for Greening Australia and Director, Advocacy for WWF-Australia.
Alexia Wellbelove is currently a Senior
Program Manager with Humane Society
International. A zoologist by training,
Alexia worked in the UK environmental
sector for ten years, including a brief spell as an environmental
consultant before moving into the NGO sector working for Bat
Conservation Trust, Marine Stewardship Council and as the Director of
Wildlife and Countryside Link, when she served on many government
Committees. She returned to Australia at the end of 2008 and took up
the position with HSI in early 2009. With over a decade’s experience in
the conservation arena, Alexia’s work at HSI is currently focused on
environmental policy with a particular focus on marine campaign issues,
as well as broader conservation, wildlife trade and animal welfare issues.
Stacey Ella started work with EDO NSW in June 2015 as a Solicitor in
the litigation team. She advises and represents clients in a broad range
of environmental and planning law matters. Stacey has previously worked
as a lawyer in the Environment and Planning team at commercial firm
Corrs Chambers Westgarth and was a tipstaff to the Hon. Justice Malcolm
Craig at the NSW Land and Environment Court. She is admitted as a
Solicitor of NSW and the High Court of Australia and holds a Bachelor
of Arts (with Distinction) from the University of New South Wales and
a Juris Doctor from the University of Technology Sydney. Stacey is
currently a member of the NSW Young Lawyers Environment and
Planning Law Committee.
HSI wishes to thank everybody involved in the production of this policy publication,we are eternally grateful
T H R E A T E N E D S P E C I E S C O N S E R V A T I O N I N A U S T R A L I A
153